ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

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

Contenu archivé

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

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

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

FOUR COUNTY DIVERSION

PROGRAM EVALUAT ION

I NTER I M REPORT

A REPORT PREPARED BY

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP INCORPORATED

THE W-CLIFFE GROUP INCORFURATED • (416) 961-1536 771 YONGE STREET, SUITE 301, TORONTO, ONTARIO M4W 204

1

INITIAL REPORT

eCe ci. ',... .rts ,..,

V

L...zy ,-• "&,--.. 4

, ..,„;-.e. ..e,. e ei e ze , e' g S

çe ee q? , -1,..e (k -.- .- ee c.. -e: 14'.- .:,.- ee

p,, • .....

e -,, ----• e

-,

ce.

- Ls•A Niel OA

OCT â9 1993 r",! , 2 1 f•••

1 1

1 1

1

1

''eOUR COUNTY DIVERSION

PROGRAM EVALUATION

submitted to Consultation Centre, Federal

Solicitor General and Probation and

Aftercare, Ministry of Community

and Social Services

Toronto, Kitchener

January 12, 1983

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II INTRODUCTION 1

II BACKGROUND 2

II ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 5 1. Past Arrangements: Centralized Approach 5

I . Role of Diversion Chairman 5

2. Present Arrangements: Decentralized Approach 6

11 3. Impact of Decentralization on Staff Morale 4. Contractual Arrangements and Administrative Responsibility

7 11

5. Responsibilities of Diversion Officers 14

Il • Urban Setting 15

• Rural Setting 16

I/ • Distinction From PACO's 19

6. Secretarial and Office Arrangements 20

11 DIVERSION PROGRAM: COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 22

II 1. Volunteers

• Selection Process

22 23

11

• Training 23

• Remuneration

24

• Length of Stay on Diversion Committee 25 II 11 2. Lawyers 26

• Role Conflict 26

11 . Role of Lawyer in Different Committees 27

I DIVERSION PROGRAM: PROCESS

1. Referral Process

29 29

II

2. No Change In Number of Charges Laid 3. Nature and Number of Referrals

31 33

4. Savings in Police Time 42

II 5. Perceptions: Police 43

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

■■■■

11

6. Parents' and Youths' Perceptions of Referral Process 45

• Source of First Znocledge of Program 45

• Initial Impressions of Program 46

7. Diversion Committee Meetings 47

. Physical Arrangements 50

.

• Time of Meeting 52

• Length of Meeting 54

8. Diversion Committee Procedures 58

• Introduction 58

. Discussion With Lawyer 59

• Whole Committee Discussion 61

. Discussion of Diversion Terms 63

• Explanation of Terms to Youth and Parents 64

. Initial Impact of the Meeting 65

9. Terms of Diversion Agreement 67

. Attitudes to Diversion Terms 72

• Psychological Assessments 74

DIVERSION PROGRAM: OUTCOMES 76

1. Completions: Short-Term Success 76

. Failure to Comply 78

2. Changed Perceptions of Clients: Short-Term Effectiveness 81

3. Client Satisfaction 84

4. Perceptions of Program Effectiveness 86

• Short-Term Effectiveness: General Perceptions 87

• Police Perceptions of Effectiveness 88

• Judges' Perceptions of Effectiveness 89

• Lawyers' Perceptions of Effectiveness 89

• Volunteers' Perceptions of Effectiveness 90

• Diversion Officer's Perceptions of Effectiveness 91

• Follow-Op Interviews 92

. Long Term Effectiveness 93

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

4. The Question of Recidivism 94

• ControZ Group Experiment 94

• Comparison with Another Municipality 95

• P1',e- and Post-Diversion Comparisons 97

• AnaZysis of Available Data 97

• Case Study Approach 100

• Summary 101

1

1

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP'

1

INTRODUCTION

The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated is pleased to present the first of

two reports, of its evaluation activities in connection with the Four

County Diversion Program. The present report concentrates on

qualitative findings, which have been derived from interviews with

personnel of the Program and others involved in, and affected by,

the Program.

In this first report, we have concentrated mainly on the organizational

arrangements, and the structure, process, and outcomes of the Diversion

Program itself. We have made a number of recommendations concerning

the organization of the Program, within the Ministry of Community and

Social Services, as well as other areas connected with the operations

of the Diversion Program itself.

It is our intention in the second report, to be presented shortly,

to concentrate on the costs of the Diversion Program, and attempt to

make a comparison between the costs of sending a young person to

Diversion on the first offense, compared to sending a young person

to Court on the first offense. In the second report, we will also be

looking in more detail at the question of recidivism.

The concentration in this report, then, is more on the organization

and the process of the Diversion Program, as opposed to the hard-core

outcomes. We have also, in this report, highlighted the differences

which have been noted between the application of the Diversion Program

in a rural setting, compared with that in an urban setting. In this

case, we have made a comparison between the Diversion Program as it

operates in Grey and Bruce counties, and the Diversion Program as it

operates in Kitchener and Cambridge. Because the Diversion Program in

Wellington County was not fully operational when we carried out these

interviews, it was felt that it would be unfair to include this County

in the comparison.

1

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

2

BACKGROUND

The Diversion Program under review, began in February, 1977 in the

Region of Waterloo. At the time, the program operated with two

Diversion Committees, one serving the Kitchener-Waterloo area (Waterloo

Region north of Highway 401) and one serving the Cambridge area

(Waterloo Region south of Highway 401). These Diversion Committees

each consisted of two community volunteers, a legal aid lawyer and a

Probation and Aftercare Officer, who acted as the Chairman of both of

the committees. The committees were each responsible for drawing up

the Terms of the Diversion in an Agreement which was signed by the

young offender and the Diversion Chairman.

The Diversion Program was designed to promote a sense of responsibility

to the community, and in the young offender and his/her family, by dealing

with delinquent acts, without reliance on the criminal justice system.

The Agreements reached amongst the committee, the juvenile and his

parents, were designed to help the young offenders understand the con-

sequences of their actions. Young people were encouraged, through the

use of this program, to gain a sense of self-satisfaction in making up

for the harm, inconvenience, and damage resulting from their behavior.

When the project was initiated in 1977, the defined target group as

outlined by the Diversion Chairman, were youths of both sexes, less

than 16 years of age, who were charged with a criminal offense, and

had not been found delinquent within the past two years. Additionally,

it was a prerequisite of the program, that the youths had not partici-

pated unsuccessfully in the Diversion Program within the previous two

years, and that the offense did not involve serious personal injury,

or a charge of truancy.

The Diversion Project was, at the time of its inception; wholly funded

by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The salary of the

Probation and Aftercare Officer was handled by the Ministry. Admin-

istrative matters for the Diversion Program were handled by the Ministry.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

3

The first Diversion Chairman, Mr. Bradley Archer, was a Special Projects

Officer in the Ministry (then the Ministry of Correctional Services).

His successor was Mr. Michael Lemme, a Probation and Aftercare Officer,

in the Ministry of Community and Social' Services.

Following discussions with officials in the Ministry, it was decided in

1981 that the project should be expanded from the Region of Waterloo, to

encompass Grey and Bruce Counties. The Diversion Chairman at the time,

Mr. Richard Mazur, was responsible for the selection and hiring of the

Diversion Officer for these two counties, Mr. Edward Dunham who was to

be located in the county seat of Grey County, Owen Sound. The Diversion

Program became operational in Grey and Bruce Counties in July of 1981.

Two Diversion Committees were established: one for Grey County located

in Owen Sound, and one for Bruce County, located in Walkerton. The

Diversion Officer, Mr. Dunham, served both counties.

In January of 1982, a funding request was submitted through the Conestoga

Community Clinic, to the Federal Solicitor General's Consultation Centre,

in Toronto. This request was to provide for the salary of the Project

Secretary, a Diversion Officer in the County of Wellington, and an

additional Officer within the Region of Waterloo. In the same applica-

tion, funding was requested to cover evaluation research of what was

now referred to as the Four County Diversion Program, which was to be

carried out between April of 1982 and March of 1983.

In April, 1982, funds were received from the Consultation Centre by the

Conestoga Community Clinic, for the two Diversion Officer positions,

for the position of Diversion Secretary, and for the evaluation. In

June, 1982 one Diversion Officer, Mr. Daniel Voss, began work in the

Region of Waterloo, and in July, 1982, an additional Diversion Officer,

Mr. Donald Beitz, began work in the County of Wellington. The Diversion

Secretary, already working on the project under contract with the

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

Ministry, had the responsibility for her salary transferred to the

Federal Solicitor General, when the funds came available in the spring

of 1982.

In May of 1982, The Sutcliffe Group Incorporated was contracted to

conduct evaluation research on the program. Throughout the summer

of 1982 and into the Fall of 1982, a number of interviews were held

with various key individuals in the Diversion Program, as well as a

number of young offenders and their families.

In addition to these interviews, changes were made to the information

system currently operating within the Diversion Program, and, as a

result of these changes made by The Sutcliffe Group, new data concern-

ing the amount of time spent by Diversion staff, is being collected.

The results of the analysis of those data will be reported in a second

report, to be presented early in 1983.

The present report then, presents the results of the interviews, and

an analysis of data which has been collected up to the point of this

report. The concentration is on four Diversion Committees: Kitchener,

Cambridge, Grey and Bruce. The Wellington County Committee has not

been included in the comparison.

4

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

1 I.

ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

At present, the Four County Diversion Program is run under the auspices

of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In Kitchener, the

Diversion Officer, and Diversion Secretary are located in the Probation

and Aftercare offices of the Ministry; in Cambridge, the Diversion

Officer has an office within the Ministry offices; in Grey County, the

Diversion Officer has a desk within the Ministry offices, and in Walker-

ton, the Diversion Committee meetings take place in the offices of the

Ministry.

1. Past Arrangements: Centralized Approach

In this section we provide a brief overview of the organizational arrange-

ments of the Four County Diversion Project, in the past.

Role of Diversion Chairman

When application was first made to the Federal Solicitor General for

funding, the Diversion Chairman, Mr. Richard Mazur, was the co-ordinator

of the program operating in the Region of Waterloo, and Grey and Bruce

Counties. Mr. Mazur, a qualified Probation and Aftercare Officer, had

instituted a number of changes in the Diversion Program, since April,

1980, when he had taken over responsibility for the program from his

predecessor, Mr. Lemme.

In the 18 months following Mr. Mazur's taking over the Diversion Program,

as mentioned, the program was expanded to include a separate Diversion

Officer in Cambridge, and was also expanded into Grey and Bruce Counties.

A secretary for the Diversion Program, was hired on a contract, with

monies from the Toronto Offices of the Ministry. Mr. Mazur, was also res-

ponsible for the hiring of the Diversion Officer in Cambridge, a Super-

visor of Juveniles, seconded from a training school, Mrs. Verna Brayshaw,

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

6

as well as Mr. Dunhan, for Grey and Bruce.

In addition to expanding the boundaries, in his capacity as Diversion

Chairman, Mr. Mazur, because of his creativity, and commitment to the

program, initiated a number of conceptual changes, as well. The profile

of the Diversion Program became centralized, with the three Diversion

staff "reporting" to Mr. Mazur. Regular Diversion staff meetings were

held and changes were made in the program to serve better the needs of

the young offenders and their families and to enhance the Program's

profile in the community.

As a result of this high profile, the Diversion Program gained an indivi-

dual identity. The Diversion Program was seen as being managed from the

Diversion Office situated in the Ministry's PACO offices in Kitchener,

where Mr. Mazur, and the Diversion Secretary, Mrs. Joyce Cattle, were

located. The Diversion Officers in Grey-Bruce, and Cambridge looked to

Mr. Mazur for direct supervision concerning what for them, was a new and

innovative program.

2. Present Arrangements: Decentralized Approach

At the same time as the Diversion Program was "centralizing", the

philosophy of the Ministry of Community and Social Services was moving

in the direction of "decentralization". Up until January, 1982, the

Probation and Aftercare services of the Ministry in Grey and Bruce

Counties, were supervised from the Area Office in Waterloo, by Mr. Roger

Wilson.

In January, 1982, however, Mr. Charles Caudle was appointed Program

Supervisor - Children's Services, in the Ministry offices in Owen

Sound, and took over responsibility for the Probation and Aftercare

services in Grey and Bruce. Concurrent with these new duties, Mr.

Caudle assumed supervisory responsibility for the Diversion Program in

Grey and Bruce, and the Diversion Officer, Mr. Dunham.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

7

The rationale behind this decentralization, appears to be that local

programs should reflect the community, and local flavour of those

people who are serviced by the program. In this sense then, having

a Diversion Program in Grey and Bruce Counties reflect the overall

objectives of the Ministry in that County (i.e. local autonomy), could

be seen as somewhat more appropriate t han having a Diversion Program

which reflects the goals established in an urban setting, that is the

Region of Waterloo.

In March, 1982, Mr. Roger Wilson, Supervisor of Probation and Aftercare

in the Waterloo Region, assumed responsibility for the Chairmanship of

the Diversion Program. Mr. Mazur returned to his original duties as a

Diversion Officer and Probation and Aftercare Officer, until he left

the Ministry, to return to university, in August, 1982.

3. Impact of Decentralization on Staff Morale

Up until January, 1982, when the Diversion Officers for Grey-Bruce and

Cambridge "reported" to Mr. Mazur the Diversion Chairman, the Program,

as mentioned, had an individual identity. With "centralization" came

the feeling on the part of the Diversion Officers, and the Diversion

Secretary, that they were part of a team, working on the same program

which stretched over three counties, and four Diversion Committees.

The program was applied consistently across the four Committees, and

at staff meetings, consultations were held amongst the Officers and

Chairman, concerning problems which may have arisen in the application

of the program, and potential solutions were worked out.

Subsequent to the de-centralization of the program, there was a change

in program identity to a more "localized" approach. Individual Diversion

Officers now report to the Supervisor within the Ministry, who is in

charge of that local area. In Grey and Bruce Counties, Mr. Dunham, the

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

8

Diversion Officer, reports to Mr. Caudle, the Program Supervisor. In

the Region of Waterloo, the Diversion Officers Mrs. Brayshaw, Mr. Voss

(who replaced Mr. Mazur on the Kitchener Diversion Committee), and

Mr. Beitz (in Wellington County), and the Diversion Secretary, Mrs.

Cattle, all report to Mr. Wilson, the Supervisor of Probation and

Aftercare in the Region.

The most significant impact of this decentralization has been on actual

supervision of the Diversion Officers. The two Supervisors now respon-

sible for the Diversion Program (Mr. Caudle and Mr. Wilson), have both,

up to the point of this report, been heavily involved in other super-

visory activities. This observation applies particularly to Mr. Caudle,

who not only took over the responsibility for the Diversion Program in

Grey and Bruce Counties, but became the first, locally-based Program

Supervisor for the Children's Services in those two counties. As such,

he became heavily involved in familiarizing himself with the whole range

of programs operating in the two counties, as well as giving consideration

to some new innovations.

Mr. Caudle also, because of his seniority in the Ministry, often sub-

stituted for the Area Manager (Mr. Caudle's immediate supervisor), in

Regional Meetings when the Area Manager, Mr. David Waters, was unavailable.

This meant a good deal of travel throughout Southwestern Ontario, for

Mr. Caudle. The effect of this, of course, was that he was not able to

devote as much time to supervision of the Diversion Officer in Grey-Bruce,

as the Officer had originally received from the Diversion Chairman, when

the Diversion Program had been centralized in Kitchener.

Likewise, Mr. Wilson was similarly over-loaded with other duties and

responsibilities, and was not able to devote as much time to familiariz-

ing himself with the Diversion Program, and to supervising the Diversion

Officers in the Region of Waterloo, and in Wellington, as had been the

case prior to his taking over responsibility for the program.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

The effect, then, of decentralization became apparent in the morale of

the Diversion Officers who felt that they were not receiving adequate

Supervision from their new supervisors,and that the program had lost

its individual identity. Problems sometimes arose which required

consultation with someone familiar with the details of the program,

which was not yet the case for either of these two new supervisors.

It should not be overlooked, however, that the expertise for dealing

with such problems related directly to the program, was indeed present

within the "team" of Diversion Officers.

As the Diversion Project has developed over the past five years in

the four counties, it has encountered a number of problems which have

not been encountered before within this setting of juvenile justice.

The ways in which these problems have been dealt with, have been unique

to the project and reflect the unique understanding of those individuals

working on the project.

Very often it is only those who are working intimately with the

difficulties and opportunities of a particular philosophical orientation,

who are able to understand in full detail, the importance of some of

the issues which arise. And it is only these individuals who are in a

position to attempt to solve some of these problems. Other individuals

not working full time with the philosophy or intent of the program may

not be able to contribute to such problem solving, in the way that people

who are working on a day-to-day basis, may be able so to do. With an

innovative program like the Diversion Program operating in the Four

Counties, there is clearly a need for there to be discussion amongst

all Officers working on the project.

If all the Diversion Officers were able to consult regularly on a monthly

basis, then the problems, concerning operation and application of the

9_

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

10

program could be discussed and overcome. Such "peer consultation"

could enhance the effectiveness of the program, as individual Diversion

Officers would be able to provide each other with advice, based on their

own experience in dealing with similar issues in the past. It appears,

then, that if the Diversion Program is to operate as efficiently as it

has in the past within the Ministry, then such peer consultation and

discussion should take place on a regular basis.

We recommend then, that regular monthly staff meetings

be held amongst all Diversion Officers in the Four

Counties (Grey-Bruce, Wellington, and the Region of

Waterloo), for the purpose of discussing cases of

mutual concern, and new approaches to dealing with

Diversion issues.

Additionally, it would be important, for the two supervisors of the

Diversion officers to meet each other on a regular basis and discuss

problems which may arise in the supervision of the Diversion Program.

Time should be allowed for this activity, and as a result,

we recommend that both Diversion Supervisors' roles

and responsibilities be re-structured to allow for

specific time for supervision of the Diversion Pro-

gram, and for consultation between themselves as to

unique problems which may arise in connection with

supervising the program.

To maintain morale and provide on-going staff training and development,

we feel that there should also be semi-annual workshops, amongst all

Diversion Officers and the two supervisors. Such workshops, which

could be scheduled for a one - or two-day period, could provide an

opportunity for the staff of the program to discuss new innovations in

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

the field of diversion generally, policy issues, and proposed changes

in the Four County Diversion Program, as well as, on-going problems

and challenges. This would allow the two supervisors to bring to the

meetings the management perspective on the Diversion Program, and would

also allow them the opportunity to familiarize themselves with what's

going on in the field.

4. Contractual Arrangements and Administrative Responsibility

At present, as discussed, the Diversion Program is run under the auspices

of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Three of the Diversion

Officers, and the Diversion Secretary, are contract employees, while the

fourth is a full-time employee of the Ministry.

Until March,1982, one Diversion Officer, Mr. Dunham, received his salary

from the Head Office (Toronto) of the Ministry of Community and Social

Services, via the Conestoga Community Clinic in Kitchener. Subsequent

to this time, Mr. Dunham receives his salary directly from the Ministry's

offices in Toronto.

Until June, 1982, the Diversion Secretary, Mrs. Cattle, received her

salary from the Toronto offices of the Ministry via the Conestoga

Community Clinic, but after the agreement between the Conestoga Clinic

and the Consultation Centre of the Federal Solicitor General, was signed,

Mrs. Cattle began to receive her salary from the Federal Solicitor

General, through the Clinic. As a clause of this agreement, the two

positions of Diversion Officer for Wellington and Kitchener were created,

and funds for these individuals' salaries came through the Clinic from

the same federal source.

At present, then, there are four Diversion Officers, three of whom. are

being paid on contract at the rate of between $18,000 and $20,000 per

11

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

12

annum, and the fourth, a full-time employee of the Ministry, who is

being paid at the rate of approximately $27,000, considerably more than

that of a Diversion Officer. This full-time Ministry employee is on

a secondment from her regular position as Supervisor of Juveniles, at

one of the Ministry's training schools.

The arrangements for benefits and holidays for the three contractual

Diversion Officers varies, with the two Officers funded by the Federal

Government receiving $19,365.00 per annum, which includes 12% for

benefits, and allows for three weeks vacation after six months. These

Officers are paid every two weeks. The Officer funded through the

Ministry receives $18,480.00, which includes 12% for benefits, but

allows for no holidays. This Officer is paid monthly.

It is our opinion that the inequity in the salaries and vacation

allowances amongst these three Officers could contribute to a morale

problem, and as a result,

we would recommend that every effort be made on the part

of the Ministry to rectify this inequity, by increasing

the salary of the Diversion Officer for which the

Ministry provides funds, and allowing for vacation

time, in amounts equal to that of the other two

contract employees.

One of the primary areas of concern to which it was felt, this evalua-

tion should be addressed, was the administrative responsibility of

the Diversion Program. In essence the question was: where should the

Diversion Program be located, and who should pay for it?

After discussing this matter with a number of the respondents interviewed,

including administrative personnel in the Ministry, judges, lawyers, and

program personnel, it appears that the most appropriate conceptual

location for the program, is within the Ministry of Community and Social

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

13

Services. Since the objective of the program is to divert youths from

the criminal justice system, it would not seem sensible to have such

a program administered through the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney

General. Nor, would the Attorney-General's Ministry -- or any part

of it such as the Court Clinic -- seem a logical alternative, in that

the program is designed to be community-based, and to instill respon-

sibility to the community, in the youths who become involved with the

program.

As the administrative structure to handle such a program already exists

with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, it appears that

the Diversion Program should be undertaken solely by that Ministry. As

a result, then,

we recommend that the administrative responsibility for

the Diversion Program be assumed wholly by the Ministry

of Community and Social Services, and that the positions

of Diversion Officer be created as full-time positions

within the Ministry, with the attendant benefits and

vacation allowances.

Consistent with the emphasis on decentralization, however,

we would also recommend that administrative respon-

sibility for the program be kept at the local level.

Specifically, we recommend that decisions as to

mileage allowances and long-distance telephone allow-

ances be made at the local level, so as to reflect

local needs and exigencies.

We discuss in further detail below, the role of the Diversion Officer,

and address the issue of the distinction between a Diversion Officer and

a Probation and Aftercare Officer, in terms of their role within the

Ministry and the attendant salaries and benefits.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

.14

5. Responsibilities of Diversion Officers

The roles and responsibilities of the four Diversion Officers, as seen

by the Officers themselves, tend to differ somewhat between the Officers

who operate in Kitchener and Cambridge, and the officers in Grey-Bruce

and Wellington Counties. There is a difference to be seen between the

rural day-to-day activities of a Diversion Officer, and the day-to-day

activities of an urban Diversion Officer. First, however, we outline,

in general terms, the responsibilities of the Diversion Officer.

Each Diversion Officer spends one morning per week in the Diversion

Committee meetings, as Chairperson. The Diversion Officer introduces

the participants, explains the procedure to the young offender and his

family, and, after the youth and his family have consulted with the

lawyer, and signed the Statement of Responsibility, leads the discussion

concerning the young offender's activities. A more detailed discussion

of the nature of the Committee proceedings is included in a later

section of this report.

Additionally, time is spent by the Diversion Officer arranging apologies,

contacting the victim, determining whether the victim is willing to be

apologized to by the young offender, and setting up an appointment time.

Time is also spent arranging for Community Service Orders (CSO) work

settings, and restitution work settings.

The Diversion Officer is also responsible for providing a social history

of the youth. The Officer is responsible for ongoing contact with the

family during the term of the Diversion Agreement, to ensure that the

offender is carrying out the Terms successfully, and to provide support

to the offender and the family, if necessary.

On the date of termination of the Agreement, the Diversion Officer will

determine whether all the terms have been fulfilled. If so, slhe will

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

contact the Court, and the police and request that the young person's

name be placed on the Court Docket. The charges will be withdrawn

and there will be no record of delinquency. A letter is sent to the

young offender to this effect.

A new activity which has been taken over by both rural and urban

Diversion Officers, is the task of setting up Community Service Orders,

not only for Diversion clients, but also for young offenders who have

been assigned these CSO's in Juvenile Court. The Diversion Officers

have assumed the role of setting up CSO's, from the Probation and

Aftercare Officers, who were, up to June, 1982 dealing with this

activity as part of their role. At the time that these interviews were

carried out, in August and September of 1982, the impact of the Diver-

sion Officers' taking over the CSO's from the PACO's, did not appear

to be significant. Indeed, it seems sensible that one person should

co-ordinate all of these activities within one job description.

Urban Setting

Those officers who work in cities -- Cambridge and Kitchener --

perform these activities in a somewhat different fashion than do those

Officers who work in a rural setting. In the cities, the majority of

their work is done on the telephone, as contacts are made with poten-

tial employers for Community Service Orders, and with the youn g .

offender, the police department, the victims, etc.

During the course of the Diversion Term for the young offender in an

urban setting, it is common for the Diversion Officer to telephone

the family and discuss with that family the progress of the young

offender. It is possible also, that there may be a home visit, or a

visit to the office of the Diversion Officer by the young person

and/or his parents.

15

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

16.

A recent innovation in regards to termination in the urban setting,

is the request that the young offenders come to the office of the

Diversion Officer at the termination of his/her Term of Agreement.

The purpose of this meeting is to allow the young person and the

Diversion Officer to discuss the events since the offense, and to

clarify with the Diversion Officer whether the young person has

"learned anything" from the experience of diversion.

Rural Setting

In a rural setting, while the responsibilities of the Diversion Officer

are the same, the role is somewhat different. The role is more along

the lines of a public relations official, as the Diversion Officers

spend a good deal of time travelling around the territory for which

they are responsible, maintaining contacts with the various police

departments, and other officials such as Probation and Aftercare

officers and Crown Attorneys. The responsibilities, as seen by the

two rural Diversion Officers, are dealt with separately, below.

Grey-Bruce: Within Grey and Bruce Counties, there are 22 different

police departments. It is important that all police departments be

kept aware, on a regular basis, of the activities of the Diversion

Program, and be kept abreast of all developments. By travelling

around the country, dropping into various police departments and in-

formally meeting with police officers and chiefs, the Diversion

Officer in Grey and Bruce Counties is able to maintain a certain rap-

port, thereby ensuring that the program will continue to have referrals

from these police departments.

It is important to note at this point, that the success of the Diversion

Program in Grey and Bruce Counties, in a large measure can be attributed

to these public relations efforts of the Diversion Officer, Mr. Dunham.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

17

As a former Chief of Police in Owen Sound, Mr. Dunham is in a unique

position to develop rapport with the various police departments, and

to establish quickly, the credibility of the Diversion Program.

As with the urban Diversion Officers, the Diversion Officer in Grey

and Bruce Counties sees as his role, in addition to chairing the

Diversion Committee meetings, the tasks of arranging apologies,

restitution, and Community Service Orders. The latter, Community

Service Orders, is seen as a particular problem for the Diversion

Program in a rural setting.

In an urban setting, there are many public institutions and organiza-

tions, in which volunteer work can be done, such as hospitals, senior

citizen's homes, arenas,YMCA's, and other such organizations, typically

found in urban settings. However, in a rural setting, where people

live farther apart, and also farther from such public service institu-

tions as those mentioned, it is more difficult for the Diversion Officer

to find settings in which Community Service Orders can be arranged.

In fact, in some rural settings, Community Service Orders have been

set up with individual citizens, as opposed to public service institu-

tions, as it has been difficult to find the required number of public

service institutions in which to carry out volunteer work.

Apologies are also handled differently in a rural setting. In an urban

setting, it is the practice of the Diversion Officer to set up the

apology and attend, with the youth and his/her family. In a rural

setting, however, it would not be possible for the Diversion Officer

to travel the required distance, to attend such an apology. As a

result, in a rural setting, the Diversion Officer will set up the

apology, by telephone, and arrange for the youth and his/her parents

to attend, but the Diversion Officer will not attend.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

18

It has been suggested in fact, that if there was a volunteer attached

to the Diversion Program, who was willing not only to set up the

Community Service Orders, but also to attend on apologies, then much

more time would be available to the Diversion Officer, to spend on

other activities such as follow-up with youths and school guidance

counsellors.

Wellington: We are only able to give a brief overview of the activities

of the Diversion Officer in Wellington County. When he was interviewed

in the beginning of September, 1982, he had only been on the job for

two months. As a result, as mentioned, most of the observations contained

in this report, and the comparisons between the application of a Diversion

Program in a rural and urban setting, apply mainly to the comparison

between Grey and Bruce Counties, and the Region of Waterloo. However,

we include here briefly, the observations of the Diversion Officer in

the County of Wellington, on the problems and difficulties encountered

in setting up such a program in that county.

The Diversion Officer in that county sees his main role as overseeing

the program, and carrying out public relations activities. He feels

that it is important to make sure that the police are clear about what

are the requirements of the program, and that they have no concerns.

Most of his work up to the point of our interview, had involved public

relations activities with the police.

Additionally, as there appeared to be few young offenders in Wellington

County being sent to Diversion by the police officers, he had also been

assisting in the Cambridge Diversion Office and helping the Diversion

Officer in that location deal with a back-log of referrals. He had

also, at that time, been setting up Community Service Order settings,

so that youths, who had been assigned to the Diversion Project in

Wellington County, would be able to perform their sco hours with few

difficuliies.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

19

Distinction From FACO's

One of the consistent themes in this evaluation has been the distinction

between Diversion Officer and Probation and Aftercare Officers (PACO's),

in terms of roles and responsibilities in relation to young offenders.

In that the Diversion Program has thus far been managed, and in some

cases operated by individuals who are PACO's, it has sometimes been

difficult to distinguish clearly between the two roles.

It appears, however, beyond the obvious distinctions such as training,

that PACO's spend more time with the young offender, in a counselling-

type relationship, and have more responsibility for the compliance of

the youth with the terms of his probation, than do the Diversion

Officers for compliance with the Terms of the Diversion Agreement.

Diversion Officers act more as a resource to the parents and the youth,

and tend to take a less interventionist role, consonant with the theme

of "diverting" the youth from involvement with the criminal justice

system. PACO's, as officers of the court, are very much a part of the

justice system, in the way that Diversion Officers are not,

Consistent, then, with the earlier recommendation, that responsibility for

the Diversion Program be assumed wholly by the Ministry of Community

and Social Services,

we recommend that the position of Diversion Officer

be kept distinct from that of Probation and Aftercare

Officer, and that PACO's not serve as Diversion

Officers.

We further recommend that the salaries and benefits

for a Diversion Officer within the Ministry be con-

sistent with that which is now being provided for by

the ,Federal Solicitor General; and that the qualifi..

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

20

cations for the position be similar to that stipulated,

for these contract positions.

6. Secretarial and Office Arrangements

Secretarial services for each Diversion Officer, are handled differently,

depending on the office. In Cambridge and Kitchener, secretarial services

are shared between the Diversion Secretary and a secretary in the Ministry

offices in Cambridge.

The secretary for the Diversion Program in . Grey and Bruce Counties is

located in Walkerton, while the Diversion Officer is located in Owen

Sound. The Diversion Secretary in Walkerton is a part-time secretary,

the other half of her time being spent on other Ministry business.

It would seem more sensible for there to be a secretary working for

the Diversion Program, in the same location where the Diversion Officer

is stationed, that is in Owen Sound.

We recommend then, that secretarial services for the

Diversion Officer in Grey-Bruce counties, be made avail-

able in the same office as that in which the Diversion

Officer is Zocated.

At present, within the Ministry, Diversion Officers share offices with

the Probation and Aftercare services. For example, in the Kitchener

office, the Diversion Officer shares an office with a Probation and

Aftercare Officer. In Owen Sound, the Diversion Officer is located

in the Children Services Office of the Ministry; in Walkerton, Diversion

meetings are held in the PACO offices. And in Cambridge, the Diversion

Officer's office is in the same suite of offices as the PAC service.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

I . 21

Some Diversion Officers, in the offices just mentioned have their own

offices -- for example, in Cambridge -- while others share offices

(Kitchener) or merely have a desk in an open-plan office (Owen Sound).

It would seem logical for those Diversion Officers who spend a good

deal of time at their desks (mainly in the urban settings of Cambridge

and Kitchener), to have their own offices, particularly in light of

the recent decision to have youths interviewed at the end of their

Diversion Term by the Diversion Officer. Consequently,

we recommend that where space permits, allowance be

made for separate office space for Diversion Officers

in urban settings.

In the rural settings, where Diversion Officers spend so much time on

the road, it may not be as necessary for them to have separate offices,

but rather shared office space. Office space, however, as opposed to

a desk in an open-plan area, is clearly preferrable to enhance work

efficiency of the Officers. As a result,

we recommend that the rural settings of Grey-Bruce (and

Wellington) Counties, the Diversion Officers be allowed

shared office space, as opposed merely to desk space,

should space permit.

I . THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

22

DIVERSION PROGRAM: COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

The Diversion Committees consist of a Diversion Officer, two volunteers

representing the community, and a legal aid lawyer who acts as Duty

Counsel. The two volunteers and the Diversion Officer are normally

involved during the Committee meeting in questioning the young offender

concerning his participation in the offense, and discussing the situa-

tion in the home, in school, and within the community.

The lawyer is intended to be involved in the program in two capacities.

First, he provides the young offender and his or her parents with legal

advice concerning the charge, and ensures that the rights of the youth

and his/her family are not infringed upon by the Committee. Second,

the lawyer is a participant in the meeting, and is free to ask questions

of the young offender and his/her parents concerning the offense or

other events in the young person's life.

In this section, we address issues surrounding the role of the volunteers

and lawyers on the Committees. In a later section, when discussing the

process of the meetings, we address the issue of these individuals' per-

ceptions of their roles.

1. Volunteers

In the course of this evaluation, we interviewed most of the volunteers

who participate on the Committees in Owen Sound, Walkerton, Kitchener,

and Cambridge. Because of summer holidays and other scheduling difficulties,

we were only able to interview seven out of the eight volunteers. Of

these seven, two individuals were homemakers, two were retirees, and

three were businessmen who were taking time off from their businesses

to devote to the Diversion Program. In all cases, this amounted usually

to one morning a week.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

Selection Process

There does not appear to be any set method of selection of volunteers,

for the Diversion Program. As far as can be ascertained, individuals

became volunteers as a result of being known to the Diversion Chairman

at the time the program was becoming operational.

While the selection of volunteers up to this point appears to have

been acceptable, it would seem, in the interests of maintaining some

kind of consistency in the selection process, that there should be

some clearly defined selection criteria and formalized advertising for

the positions.

We recommend that a list of selection criteria for

committee volunteers be drawn up, and that new

volunteers be recruited through a formalized adver-

tising process, using a formalized selection pro-

cess.

Training

All volunteers indicated that they had had no formal training for the

position of volunteer. They had all been supplied with the Diversion

Manual, a document written in May of 1981 by Mr. Mazur. There had

also been an informal "training session" with the Diversion Chairman

at the time of their recruitment, outlining what was expected by the

Diversion Officer of the Committee members, and the volunteers had

themselves sat in, on one or two Diversion Committee meetings prior

to beginning to participate.

There had, as mentioned, been no formal training, in the sense of a

one- or two-day workshop describing potential situations, and giving

potential volunteers an opportunity to discuss how various situations

could be dealt with by volunteers on the Committee.

23

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

24

Some volunteers, when asked whether they felt there had been sufficient

training, indicated that they felt no need for training, as in their

role as a representative of the community, all they really needed to

bring to the Diversion Committee meeting was "common sense". Others,

however, indicated that they would have preferred some form of formal

training, and in fact some indicated that they would have appreciated

there being discussions with the Judge in the County, who would be

able to demonstrate how he, the Judge, would normally deal with that

kind of offense.

It can be seen that there are two distinct views as to the role of the

'community volunteer. It is our feeling nevertheless, that the community

volunteers whom we interviewed in the course of this evaluation, could

better benefit from some kind of formalized training, more than merely

reading the Diversion Manual. This is not meant as a criticism of the

individuals involved, who have contributed a good deal of time and

personal commitment to the committees, which was evident in all committee

hearings attended by the evaluator. However, the seeming lack of con-

sistency in approach across the four committees viewed (to be discusseà

below, further), does not we feel, do justice to the young offenders

who should be dealt with in a fashion equivalent to others in the same

situation.

As a result, we would recommend that there be some

formal training for Committee volunteers, which,

should involve a one- or two-day workshop with a

local Family Court judge.

Remuneration

Earlier on in the Diversion Program, when the program operated only in

the Region of Waterloo, there was no remuneration whatsoever for volun-

teers. Since Mr. Mazur took over the program in April of 1980, while

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

25

there has still been no monetary remuneration, there have been a

number of dinners held for volunteers, as well as a presentation of

certificates designed and produced for this purpose. We wholeheartedly

support this attitude of the Diversion Chairman at the time, in that

some measure of appreciation is being shown to volunteers for the

considerable amount of time which they are willing to devote to this

worthwhile community activity.

We would recommend therefôre, that this fôrm of

recreational thank you to Committee volunteers,

be continued.

Length of Stay on Diversion Committee.

Some Committees which we evaluated, had fixed time periods attached

to the involvement of a volunteer on a committee. This time period

ranged from six months to two years. It is our opinion that six

months is too short a period of time for volunteers to get to know

the program, and develop a sense of what is appropriate in terms of

activities on the committee, and selection of diversion terms for the

young offender.

Likewise, we feel that two years is too long a period of time for a

diversion volunteer to be active, in that s/he could, over that period

of time, become too "stale", and possibly even "hardened" or jaundiced.

As a result,

we would recommend that the term for a volunteer be

limited to one year, with a possible six month

extension,

in those areas where it is difficult to find enough community-minded

citizens to take over the activities of a volunteer who has, as a

result of finishing one year, become prepared to resign from the

Committee.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

2. Lawyers

Lawyers on Diversion Committees perform two roles, as mentioned.

After ensuring that the Piversion eligibility requirements have been

met, it is the task of the lawyer to represent the youth, to ensure

that the young person and his/her parents understand that s/he has-

the right to go to Court, and that this is a voluntary process, and

to safeguard the rights of the youth.

The second role of the lawyer is that of Committee member -- an

individual free to ask questions of the youth as do the other Com-

mittee members.

Throughout the Committee meeting, the lawyer should ensure that all

information relevant to the offense is brought out, and, when the

Committee meets to determine what should be the terms of the agreement,

to present possible plans to the Diversion Committee, and assist them

in their decision making process.

Role Conflict

It is during this last task of the lawyer, -- assisting the Committee

members in deciding on the terms for the young offender -- that, as

one individual described it, "the judicial process stumbles".

If the lawyer, technically, is representing the youth, then it is not

entirely appropriate, it would seem, for him to participate in the

decision as to what are to be the Terms of the Agreement for that youth.

However, in that the lawyer is the only Committee member with legal

training, and, is in possession of information which would be useful

in the decision-making process,

26

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

we recommend that the lawyer state what would be

a typical disposition handed down by a judge in

Family Court, for that type of offense, and then

withdraw totally from the discussion.

The resultant decision as to the Diversion Ternis could then be wholly

decided by the Community volunteers and Diversion Officer. This could

go a long way in terms of eliminating part of the role conflict faced

by the lawyers on the Committees.

Role of Lawyer in Différent Committees

It was a finding of the evaluator that the role taken by the lawyer

seems to vary across Diversion Committees. In the four Committees

studied, two lawyers took a very active role in the Committee proceed-

ings, asking many questions of the youth, taking a role similar to that

of the volunteers and Diversion Officer. These lawyers felt that it

was their responsibility to make sure all relevant aspects of the case

were discussed, and that the youths attitudes and activities were

explored, if the volunteers or Diversion officers had not touched on

these areas.

The other two took a much less active role, and seemed more to act

like advisors to the Committee. These latter group saw themselves

more as a resource to the Committee, and feel that the position they

took should be clearly as an advisor to the youth and his/her parents.

These lawyers felt that it was the role of the volunteers and Diversion

Officer to explore the attitudes of the youth, and if they did not

raise these issues, then it was not the task of the lawyers to do so.

These two different positions taken by lawyers on different Committees,

clearly arise from the conflict in roles described earlier. While all

27

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

28

lawyers see themselves as representatives of the youths, two feel, that

in addition, they should participate fully in the questioning of the

youth -- possibly in a manner which could be seen by the youth and his

parents as very similar to the approach used by volunteers. In the eyes

of the youth and his parents interviewed, these two lawyers were seen

as more a part of the Committee, than as a representative of the youth,

at the later stage of Committee proceedings when the volunteers were

discussing with the youth his activities.

From the standpoint of consistency across committees, and in the interests

of justice, it would seem more appropriate for the two "active" lawyers

to take a less active role in questioning the youth, and assume more the

role of advisor to the Committee. As a result,

we recommend that the role of lawyers on the

Committees be clearly seen as representative of

the youth, and that the lawyer act as a resource to the Committee members, as opposed actually to participating in Cômmittee proceedings.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

29.

DIVERSION PROGRAM: PROCESS

In this section we discuss the actual process of the Diversion Program,

including the referral process, charges laid, the Diversion Committee

meeting, and the terms of the agreements. Throughout the discussion,

we attempt to draw comparisons between the rural and urban applications

of the program.

1. Referral Process

The diversion process is initiated by the police officer who lays the

charge. A youth is apprehended following involvement in illegal activi-

ties, and a decision is made by the police officer to lay a charge, or

merely to warn the youth.

When the charge is laid by the police officer, it is decided whether

or not the matter should be referred to the Diversion Program, or to

Court, for a trial. Decisions to divert, in Grey and Bruce Counties,

and in the Region of Waterloo, are almost always made in the case of

a first offense, unless the offense involves serious physical harm

or death, truancy, or if the youth has been found delinquent within

the past two years.

If the decision for Diversion is made, then photocopies of the Infor-

mation, which has been laid with a Justice of the Peace, as well as

copies of the Crown Brief, and other relevant police information such

as past occurrences, will be marked by the Court office for the

Diversion Program. The original information will be marked "Diversion

Program Eligible". It will not be assigned a Court date until the out-

come of the Diversion Program has been determined.

The youth and his/her parents are informed by the police officer at the

time of laying the charge, that s/he will be recommended for the

Diversion Program. It is at this time that the police officer will

explain the Diversion Program to the youth and his/her parents, so

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

that they may understand what is being required of them. The option

is presented at that time to withdraw from the program, as the program

is totally voluntary.

Once the charges, the Information, and the Crown Brief are in the

possession of the Diversion Officer, a letter is sent to the young

offender and his parents by the Diversion Secretary, inviting the

individual to participate in the Diversion Program. Also enclosed

with this letter is a pamphlet explaining clearly the diversion pro-

cess to the young offender. This, technically, is the second time

that the young offender and his family learns about the Diversion

Program, as they have already had it clearly explained to them by

the police.

In addition to this information sent to the young offender, there is

a request that the family contact the Diversion Office as soon as pos-

sible, and indicate whether or not they are willing to participate,

and to set up an appointment. To insure that the family has indeed

received the necessary information, a follow-up telephone call may

be made from the Diversion Program to the family, within one week of

sending the letter.

Upon receiving contact from the family, indicating that they are

willing to make an appearance at the Diversion Committee meeting,

an appointment is set to meet with the Diversion Committee.

Diversion Committee meetings are held one morning per week, in each

of the areas under study. In the event that there are not sufficient

cases for the morning Diversion Committee meeting, then no meetings

will be held for Committee members that week, and the young persons'

case will be referred to the following week.

30

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

31

2. No Change in Number of Charges Laid

Prior to discussing perceptions of police, youth and parents of the

process of referral to the Diversion Program, it is appropriate to

address the issue of numbers of charges laid by police officers since

the program has been initiated. Since this was a major concern of

those who initiated the program -- that Diversion would increase the number of youths being charged -- it should be addressed as directly

as possible. Data is only available on this issue for Grey and Bruce

Counties. Data in the Region of Waterloo is not available prior to

1977 when the program began.

Given the situation surrounding the roles of the Crown Attorneys in

Grey and Bruce Counties, it could be hypothesized that providing Diversion

as a discretional option for police officers, would increase the number

of charges laid against youths. This hypothesis can only be examined

against all factors of the situation.

Typically, when a charge is laid against a juvenile, and the juvenile

proceeds to Court, the prosecution is carried out by a Crown Attorney.

This is the case in the Region of Waterloo, where there is a Crown

Attorney who specializes in Juvenile and Family Court Cases, as well

as in Grey County where there is a Juvenile Crown. In Bruce County

however, there is no Crown who prosecutes juvenile cases.

Normally, if a charge goes to Court, and the youth pleads guilty, there

is no need for the police officer to appear; the police officer is

informed by the Crown of the guilty plea. It is only when a youth

pleads not guilty, in those places where there is a Crown Attorney

who deals with juvenile cases, that the police officers are present

in Court to provide evidence.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

However, because there is no Crown Attorney in Bruce County who

prosecutes juvenile cases, all police officers who lay charges in

that County are required to be present in court for both guilty

and not guilty pleas. The outcome of this, according to police of-

ficers interviewed in Bruce County was that very often charges were

not laid against juveniles, as police wished to avoid the costs of

court appearances.

It might be expected therefore, that there would be a considerable

increase in charges laid in Bruce County, once the Diversion program

was initiated. This, however, does not seem to have been the case,

as shown in Table 1, below.

TABLE 1

Bruce Grey County County

Charged July/80-81 109 144

Charged July 1981-82 107 134 (includes Diversion)

Charged & Referred to

44 100 Diversion July 81-82

The number of charges laid against young offenders appear not to have

changed from the year immediately prior to Diversion in Bruce County.

(It is not known how many of those .charged between July 1980 and 1981,

were first offenders and therefore eligible for Diversion.)

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

However, another interesting factor to note from Table 1, is the

number of charges laid in Grey County compared with Bruce. There

are somewhat more charges laid in Grey County then in Bruce. The

"child population" for Grey County (20,412, as of March 31, 1982) is larger than that of Bruce County (17,887), a factor which may

contribute to this discrepancy.

Another reason which has been suggested for the larger number of

charges is that this larger number of Diversion clients referred

from Grey County, as noted in Table 1, reflects the location of the Grey-Bruce Diversion Officer in Grey County. We feel, however, look-

ing at the total number ofy,outbs charged in both Grey and Bruce Counties

prior to the inception of the Diversion Project, that the greater

number of Diversion cases in Grey County can be attributed more to

the greater number of youths normally charged in that County, than

to the physical location of the Diversion Officer.

3. Nature and Number of Referrals

In this section we discuss the number of youths referred to the

Diversion Committees, in Grey, Bruce, Kitchener and Cambridge, for

the one year period beginning September, 1981. Presented below in

Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5, are the data on the number of youths referred,

number accepted, number rejected, number pleading "not guilty" and

the acceptance rate. All of these data are summarized in Table 6, below.

33

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

34

TABLE 2

Number of Youths Referred to Diversion Program: Bruce County

Referred Accepted Rejected Not Guilty % Accepted

Sept. 81 7 7 0 0 100%

Oct. 81 10 5 4 1 50%

Nov. 81 3 3 0 0 100%

Dec. 81 4 4 0 0 100%

Jan. 82 1 0 0 1 0%

Feb. 82 3 3 0 0 100%

Mar. 82 0 0 0 0 -

Apr. 82 1 1 0 0 100%

May 82 7 7 0 0 100%

June 82 2 2 0 0 100%

July 82 4 4 0 0 100%

Aug. 82 2 2 0 0 100%

TOTALS 44 38 4 2

Median Acceptance Rate = 100%*

Charges: Rejected by Committee Not Guilty Plea

Break & Enter: 4 1

Indecent Phone Call: - 1

4 2

* Median, in a skewed distribution, is a more accurate measure of central tendency, and so has been used instead of Mean.

35

TABLE 3

Number of Youths Referred to Diversion Program: Grey County

Referred Accepted Rejected Not Guilty % Accepted

Sept. 81 9 7 1 1 75%

Oct. 81 13 11 1 1 85%

Nov. 81 6 5 1 0 83%

Dec. 81 10 10 0 0 100%

Jan. 82 3 3 0 0 100%

Feb. 82 6 4 2 0 67%

Mar. 82 4 4 0 0 100%

Apr. 82 11 9 1 1 82%

May 82 12 5 1 6 42%

June 82 7 7 0 0 100%

July 82 10 7 1 2 70%

Aug. 82 9 7 2 0 78%

TOTALS 100 79 10 11

Mean Acceptance Rate: 82%

Charges Rejected By Committee Not Guilty Plea

Arson 1 1

Break & Enter 1 4

Theft Under $200 7 2

Highway Traffic Act 1 1

Forgery 0 1

Possession of Stolen Property 0 1

Mischief 0 1

11 10

36

TABLE 4

Number ofYouthsReferred to Diversion Program: Kitchener

Referred Accepted Rejected Not Guilty % Accepted

Sept. 81 17 17 0 0 100%

Oct. 81 21 20 1 0 95%

Nov. 81 13 11 2 0 85%

Dec. 81 13 12 0 1 92%

Jan. 82 16 13 3 0 81%

Feb. 82 14 14 0 0 100%

Mar. 82 14 13 1 0 93%

Apr. 82 3 3 0 0 100%

May 82 8 7 1 0 87%

June 82 16 15 1 0 94%

July 82 11 11 0 0 100%

Aug. 82 4 4 0 0 100%

150 140 9 1

Mean Acceptance Rate: 94%

Charges Rejected By Committee Not Guilty Plea

Mischief 1 1

Theft Under 4 0

Liquor Offense 2 0

Discharge Firearm 1 0

Narcotics Trafficking 1 0

9 1

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

•

37

TABLE 5

Number of Youths Referred to Diversion Program: Cambridge

Referred Accepted Rejected Not Guilty % Accepted

Sept. 81 12 12 0 0 100%

Oct. 81 10 10 0 ' 0 100%

Nov. 81 11 11 0 0 100%

Dec. 81 13 13 0 0 100%

Jan. 82 8 7 1 0 87%

Feb. 82 4 4 0 0 100%

Mar. 82 6 6 0 0 100%

Apr. 82 13 12 0 1 92%

May 82 13 12 0 1 92%

June 82 11 9 '1 1 82%

July 82 5 5 0 0 100%

Aug. 82 21 21 0 0 100%

127 122 2 3

Median Acceptance Rate: 100%*

Charges Rejected By Committee Not Guilty Plea

Theft Under $200 1 1

Theft Over $200 0 2

Break, Enter, Theft 1 0

2 3

* Median, in a skewed distribution, is a more accurate measure of central tendency, and so has been used instead of Mean.

1

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

38

TABLE 6

Overall Program Data: September 1981 - August 1982

Number of Bruce Grey Youths: County County Kitchener Cambridge

Referred 44 1n0 150 127

Accepted 38 79 140 122

Rejected 4 10 9 2

Not Guilty 2 11 1 3

% Accepted 100% (Mdn) 82% (X) 94% (X) 100% (Mdn)

Looking first at Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, which are summarized in Table 6,

it can be seen that the number of clients passing through the program in

a one year period, September,1981 to August, 1982, is approximately the

same for each Diversion Officer. In Grey and Bruce Counties there is one

Diversion Officer, and in Kitchener and Cambridge each, there is one

Diversion Officer. As can be seen by the statistics in Table 6, each

Diversion Officer has between 125 and 150 cases per year.

Another conclusion which might be drawn from Table 6 is that, while there

is nevertheless a number of rejections from all four Committee observed,

there is a fairly high level of acceptance (over 82% in all cases) of

cases referred to the committees. We present this data in order to

suggest that the police officers in the various police departments served

by the Diversion Program appear to have a fairly good grasp of what is

intended by the Diversion Program. In other words, the referrals made

by the police departments, in most cases, appear to be appropriate.

Also to be noted in Table 6, is the rate at which clients are accepted

into the program, compared with the rate at which they are rejected.

It will be seen that both Bruce and Cambridge Committees, have a higher

acceptance rate than do the Committees in Grey County and in Kitchener.

Both Kitchener and Grey County, who have rejected clients, have re-

jected an equal number, while in Grey County there was a much greater

number of not guilty pleas.

One could hypothesize, on the basis of these data on the high number

of not guilty pleas in Grey County, that the police officers in Grey

County may have become more zealous, as a result of the Diversion

Program, and may have started to charge juveniles who otherwise would

not have been charged, because there was not enough information to

take such a case to Court. It must be emphasized however, that this

is an hypothesis.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from such an hypothesis, then,

basically supports a concern expressed about the Diversion Program, --

that the program has created a new clientel of young offenders; young

people who without Diversion as adiscretionanyoption, would not have been charged by police.

However, in view of the data from the three other counties, it does

not appear that this argument can be supported. Looking at data

from Bruce County, Kitchener, and Cambridge, the rate of not guilty

pleas is very much lower in comparison to Grey County. In fact, the

percentage of not guilty pleas, to those referred ranges, between

k% and 4% (in Bruce County), compared with 11% in Grey County. Clearly, in the other three Committees examined then, police are not charging

youths with offenses supported by evidence which could not stand in

Court.

One must then look for other reasons why there is such a proportionately

higher rate in Grey County.

The answer to this question may lie in the types of charges laid in

Grey County, compared with the other three committees, as seen in

Table 7, below.

.39_

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

TABLE 7

Charges By Committee Referred To Diversion Program: Sept. 81 - Aug. 82 and Per Cent of Total Charges for that Committee.

Grey Bruce Ki %

tchener Cambridge Charges N%N% N N%

Theft Under $200.00 82 76% 11 24% 59 39% 68 54% Theft Over $200.00 0 - 0 - 7 5% 2 1% Break & Enter 2 2% 2 4% 1 1% 4 3% Break, Enter & Theft 7 7% 8 18% 13 8% 17 13% Attempt Break, Enter

Theft 1 1% 7 16% 0 - 0 - Possession Stolen Goods 2 2% 1 2% 11 7% 9 7% Mischief 5 4% 2 4% 11 7% 4 3% Highway Traffic offenses 5 4% 3 8% 7 5% 1 1% Firearm Offenses 0 0 5 3% 0 Liquor Offenses 2 2% 1 2% 8 5% 5 3% Other: a 0 b

2 2/. 10 22% 31 c 20% 17d 15%

108 100% 45 100% 153 100% 127 100%

aOther (Grey): Arson, Trespassing.

bOther (Bruce): Indecent Phone Call, Breach of Trust, Obstruct Execution

of Warrant.

cOther (Kitchener): Fraud, Assault, Wilful Damage, Public Nuisance,

Unlawful Entry, Property Damage, False Pretense, Forgery, Narcotics Trafficking.

d Other (Cambridge): Assault, Possession of Narcotics, Wilful Damage,

Intent to Mislead.

40

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

41

Looking at Table 7, and the types of charges laid against young offenders

referred to the four committees studied, certain themes appear to emerge.

The very high percentage of charges laid for the offense of Theft Under

$200.00 in Grey County (76%) is perhaps a source of the explanation for the

high number of not guilty pleas. It has been noted anecdotally, that this

76% represents the difficulties which police officers around the Owen

Sound area, have with the offense of shoplifting. In the malls and

large department stores located in and around Owen Sound, this problem

is fairly serious according to police officersin that area.

Prior to Diversion, it was the habit of police officers and security

guards normally to issue a warning on the first offense, and not lay a

charge. Typically, this was enough to "scare" a youngster, who was

experimenting with shoplifting, and there were no further occurences.

However, since the Diversion Program has been instituted in Grey County,

in July of 1981, police officers in the OPP detachment in Owen Sound

(the force responsible for most of the shopping malls), as well as

security guards have begun a practise of charging on the first offense

for shoplifting. As a result, a very high percentage of the cases

being referred to Diversion, are for shoplifting. Many more youths

may be challenging this charge, which, of course, would mean a higher

rate of not guilty pleas for the Grey County Committee.

In Bruce County, the shoplifting problem is not as evident, as can be

seen by the statistics. The information presented in Table 7 seems to

indicate that the kinds of charges laid in Bruce County, reflect a

more "rural flavor", than do those in Grey County, where the emphasis,

as noted earlier, is on the offense of shoplifting. In Bruce County,

more offenses are associated with property, mischief, and highway

traffic offenses.

In both Kitchener and Cambridge, the offenses again tend to be different.

While there is indeed a large percentage (39% and 54% respectively) of

offenses for shoplifting, there is also an increased number of offenses

for Theft Over $200.00, as well as for possession of stolen property,

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

42

and other offenses such as damage, false pretense, assault, and narcotics

trafficking. Again, this could be interpreted as reflecting an urban

influence, as young people tend to become involved in more serious

offenses in the city, reflecting the influences of city life.

The most important factor to be noted about Tables 1 through 7 presented above, is the number of individuals involved. It was noted earlier

that there was a concern expressed that the Diversion Project has "created"

a new set of young offenders. The concern was that the Diversion Project

has got more young people involved with the justice system, than normally

would have been, thereby defeating the purpose of Diversion. It is

important to note therefore, that the numbers involved (approximately

100 youths per committee, in the course of one year), are not that great.

While there may have been a slight increase in the numbers of juveniles

who were charged from Grey County, it must be remembered that the order

of magnitude which we are dealing, is very small, and therefore any

comparisons between the number of juveniles charged since Diversion,

compared with before Diversion, in Grey-Bruce especially, is probably

not statistically significant.

4. Savings in Police Time

The primary finding in our interviews with 18 police officers in ten

police departments in Grey and Bruce Counties, and the Region of Waterloo

Juvenile Department, is that sending a youth to the Diversion Program

saves Court time, on the part of the police officers. A majority of

officers interviewed indicated that Court time had been reduced

drastically, saving many dollars of taxpayers' money in over-time.

Other officers indicated that Diversion saved time in terms of reducing

travel, especially in the rural locations.

For example, prior to Diversion, if a police officer in Wiarton laid

a charge against a youth, that officer would have to travel to Walkerton

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

to be present in court. This would involve a day of overtime pay, for

the police officer from such a small police force, and would also tie

up the only town police cruiser for a whole day.

Most police officers indicated that the actual paperwork associated

with laying a charge for Diversion, was no different than that for

sending a youth to Court directly. The actual steps of laying the

information, filling out the Crown Brief, and doing the investigation

were identical, and there was therefore no time saved.

Police officers, however, indicated that there had been a time saving

in terms of their own "diversion" programs. Many officers, especially

in rural locations, indicated that they had been encouraged by the

previous Family Court Judge (in Grey-Bruce), not to lay a charge on

first offense, but to set up their own, informal, "diversion" or

"community service" programs. Much police time had been taken up

with this activity, which was seen as more beneficial for the youth,

and more satisfying for the police officer, than sending the youth to

Court, and having the case adjourned "sine die". Since the beginning

of the Diversion Program, however, these officers were no longer

setting up their own "diversion" programs, but were referring these

youths, once charged, to Diversion.

5. Perceptions: Police

There was a difference between Diversion in a rural setting, and

Diversion in an urban setting, in terms of the police officers'

perceptions of the program. Rurally, police officers indicated that

there was an enhancement of their self image in the community.

Previously, when juveniles had been sent to Court on first offence,

it seemed to rural police officers, as mentioned, that there had been

no consequences for the youth. The case' would be adjourned sine die,

43

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

44

and the youth would leave the Court "scot free". Returning to his

home community, typically a small town where everyone knew one another,

the youth would feel free to be derisive of the police officer, who

had gone to a good deal of trouble to make the investigation and lay

the charge, and whose work, apparently, had come to naught. Police

officers indicated that this kind of derision, did little to enhance

the respect for police officers in general, in the communities where the

youth had been charged, and had not had that charge reinforced by a

sentence in the Courts.

Now, however, after Diversion, where youths left the program with a

specified amount of work to do, there appeared, for the youth and for

the police officers, to be some consequences for the youths' actions.

From the standpoint of the police officer, their work now seems to be

rewarded, and there is much more job satisfaction.

Additionally, rural police officers noted another benefit of the

Diversion Program. For the youth, there now appears to be some

negative consequences, when the law is broken. As opposed to learning

contempt for the legal system and for the Courts, say police officers,

these youths are now developing a much greater respect for the law,

which is evidenced by their different attitudes towards police.

This kind of respect for law and order does not seem to have had the

same impact in the urban setting as it does in the rural setting. In

the city, where the youths tend not to know the police officers as well,

there is not that much of a chance for there to be an impact on the

image of police officers. The impact more is on the police officers'

job satisfaction in an urban setting, where police officers describe,

prior to Diversion, the frustration and defeat experienced after going

to Court with a charge, and watching a youth leave Court with a sine

die adjournment, or even a term of probation. Urban police officers

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

45

now feel that youths are receiving some serious consequences for their

illegal activities, and these officers are now deriving more satisfaction

from their jobs as a result.

6. Parents and Youths' Perceptions of Referral Process

In this section we describe the perceptions of the parents and the

youths of the referral process, as it was outlined earlier.

Source ofFirst Knowledge of Progrœm

The majority of the parents and youths learned about the program from

the police officer who laid the initial charge (67%). Two other families

already knew about the Diversion Project, one because another son had

been involved, and one knew already from other parents, and from the

school where his son attended. The other two families found out about

the Diversion Project when the letter arrived from the program, informing

them that their son had been charged and should contact the Diversion

Program to make an appointment.

In at least one of these last two cases, the parent did not know that

her son had been charged until the letter has been received from the

Diversion Project indicating that an appointment should be made. In

this case particularly, the parent was rather upset, as she had been

led to believe by the police officer that she would receive some sort

of advance warning, as to whether or not her son would be charged. She

did not in fact get this warning.

Of those individuals who were informed by the police officer who laid

the charge against their child, almost all indicated that the police

officers had given a fair and complete explanation of what to expect

in the Diversion Committee meeting. The only exceptions to this were

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

those explanations given by Ontario Provincial Police Officers, who

tended to be more perfunctory with their explanations, than did the

town police or the Juvenile Departments in the city.

Initial Impressions of Program

All of the parents who were interviewed thought very highly of the

concept of Diversion. All thought that it was an excellent idea, and

that their child was being given a second chance. Some felt that the

youth would learn more from the Diversion Committee meeting than s/he

would learn'in Court, as more time was spent with their child in the

Committee meeting, making sure that s/he understood the problem and

why the Diversion Terms were being set in the fashion that they were.

Generally, it can be said, that all juveniles who were observed in

Diversion Committee meetings took the process rather seriously. Youths

who were interviewed afterwards indicated that they had been scared,

embarassed, ashamed, shy, and other similar descriptions. As one

youngster described it, "I was really scared and shook up. I sure will

remember it." Others emphasized the aspect of their being given a

second chance. ("They're giving me a chance not to cause trouble

anymore and to learn".)

These perceptions of the parents and the youths who were involved in

the Diversion Committee meeting, are clearly a measure of the program

effectiveness. While there does not seem to be any noticeable dif-

ferences between the effectiveness in an urban and a rural setting,

the effectiveness appears to be universal across committees. It

was our distinct impression that there was now some motivation on both

the part of the youth to change her/his ways, and to benefit from the

opportunity being provided to them.

46

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

47

The feeling on the part of parents especially, that the process is fair,

and that their children are being given a second chance ("Everyone should

be given a second chance"), is, we feel, a reflection of their perceptions

of the law and the legal system. If parents are seeing the justice system

as something which is fair and equitable, as opposed to something which

is punitive, which is too often the case, then there is more likelihood

of compliance, and encouragement of the youth involved to comply with

the Terms of Diversion, than if this were not the case.

Indeed, while this may be a measure of program effectiveness to the

extent that the parents and child perceive that they are being treated

fairly, it is nevertheless a short term measure. These observations

were taken the same day of the committee hearing, and so the perceptions

of the parents and theyouths are fresh in their minds. If anything,

this measure could be seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition

for the program effectiveness. There should clearly be more long term

goals set to measure program effectiveness -- most noteable that of

recidivism -- which will be investigated later in this report.

7. Diversion Committee Meeting

The Diversion Committees meet at least one morning per week in their respective locales. The meetings are designed to take place in an informal setting such as a conference room within a community agency. Each meeting with the offender and his/her family should take approxi- mately 45 minutes to one hour, which allows for three or four diversion clients to be heard on any one morning. The number of cases to be heard in a given morning should be determined by the number of cases pending.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

48

At the beginning of the meeting, the youth and his/her family are

' invited into the room and introductions are made by the Diversion

Officer. In addition to the Diversion Officer, there are two volunteers

from the community present as well as the lawyer acting as Duty Counsel.

The Diversion Program is then explained to the young person and his/her

parents, to ensure that the young person understands why s/he is

participating in the meeting, and to reinforce that participation is

voluntary.

Following this explanation, the Diversion Officer and the two volunteers

should leave the room, allowing the family to discuss with the lawyer

the ramifications of dealing with the Diversion Program as well as the

responsibility for the offense. The lawyer investigates whether or

not there is a reasonable defense to the charge, and if there is, he

will halt the proceedings at that point, and refer the charge back to

Court on a not guilty plea. If however, he feels that there is no

reasonable defense for the charge, and explains this to the young

offender, he then requires the young offender to sign a Statement of

Responsibility for the offense. This statement is signed also by the

parents. It acknowledges that the youth has discussed the offense with

legal counsel and admits that the charge is true and that the youth

accepts responsibility for his actions in the offense.

The remainder of the Committee then return to the meeting room, and

the charge is read out by the Diversion Officer. The young offender

is asked to explain his version of events surrounding the charge, and

the offense. The committee members are free to direct questions to

the offender concerning his involvement not only with the offense,

but also in other areas of his life, such as school and home.

The Diversion Committee is in possession of the Crown Brief, and should

the young offender's explanation of his involvement not agree with

information supplied with the police department as outlined on the

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

Crown Brief, then the meeting is terminated and the charge is referred

back to Court. In this way, it is ensured that the youth will not

plead guilty to an offense of which he is innocent, in order to avoid

a Court appearance.

After all relevant information has been received from the family, and

discussed to everyone's satisfaction, the family and the youth are

asked to leave the room. In their absence, the case is discussed

amongst the volunteers, the lawyer, and the Diversion Officer, and

an agreement is arrived at, concerning the most appropriate terms for

the youth to follow.

The young offender and his family are then invited back into the meeting

room and the Terms of the Diversion Agreement are presented by the

Diversion Officer. The youth is asked whether s/he disagrees with

any of the Terms, and whether s/he feels they are unfair. If the

juvenile is in fact able to give a reasonable explanation as to why

some of the Terms should be changed, then the Committee is free to

decide whether these alterations should be incorporated in the Agreement.

The Committee makes this Agreement binding for a period of time which

ranges from a minimum of three months to a maximum of six months in

duration.

The parents are also asked whether they are in agreement with the

Terms of the Agreement as they have been laid out. They are also

asked whether or not thgy think other terms should be added to the

list, or whether any additional assistance could be provided to them

in managing their child.

One of the last Terms of the Agreement which may be included, is a

strong recommendation by the Committee to the parents that the family

participate in family counselling. A list of names of appropriate

agencies and telephone numbers to contact is then presented to the

49

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

50

family. If the parents do decide to make arrangements for family

counselling, then as part of the Diversion Agreement, the young of-

fender will be required to attend.

At the conclusion of the meeting the agreed upon Terms are typed, and

a copy is provided to the offender and his family after the Agreement

has been signed by the young offender, a parent, and the Diversion

Officer. Copies of the Statement of Agreement are also sent to the

Court as well as to the police.

This description provided above, has been taken from the Diversion

Manual. It describes what is supposed to happen in a Diversion Com-

mittee meeting, and, as described below, there are, in fact, discrepan-

cies in some cases.

Physical Arrangements

In the four Diversion Committees under study, -- Grey, Bruce, Kitchener

and Cambridge -- there was, generally speaking, conformance with the

above description, concerning the location of committee meetings in an

informal setting, such as a conference room within a community agency.

In two Diversion Committees -- Kitchener and Owen Sound -- the committee

meetings took place in the board room in the offices of the Ministry of

Community and Social Services. In Walkerton, the committee meeting

takes place within the Ministry of Community and Social Services offices,

but not in a board room. In Cambridge, the meetings take place in a

church meeting hall, which has been donated for these purposes by the

church in Cambridge.

The impact of the Diversion Committee meeting places is difficult to

determine. It is difficult to determine whether having Diversion

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

51

Committee meetings in the offices of a government ministry enhances

the informal aspect of the Diversion Program, or is detrimental to that

aspect. Some observers have noted that by having the meetings in a

ministry office, the tenor of the meeting is changed more to that of

an administrative procedure, as opposed to a judicial procedure.

These individuals advocate that the meeting should be held in a Court-

room or Courthouse, thereby lending credence to the judicial nature

of the process.

Others, however, argue that the location of the Diversion process,

for example in a church basement, is beneficial to the program, from

the standpoint that it.enhances the community-based nature of the

program, as well as the informal nature of the community proceedings.

It is our opinion that the location of the Diversion Committee meetings

in the community is preferable to the location of the Committee meetings

in a Courthouse or some other judicially-related building. As the

purpose of Diversion is to stress the responsibility of the young

offender for his actions, and the accountability of the young offender

to the victim and/or the community, then it seems appropriate that the

location of the meeting should be in a community agency. We feel that

the set-up as arranged in the Cambridge Diversion Committee, is the

most appropriate. The two committee hearings which are held in the

board rooms of the Ministry offices are less appropriate, and the

Walkerton Committee meeting which is held in the office of one of

the Ministry offices, is least appropriate, as far as we are concerned.

The last office, the Walkerton Committee meeting, we feel is least

appropriate in that the setting, while being informal, is perhaps

too informal, and does not convey to the young offender the seriousness

of the meeting itself. Likewise, in this office particularly, the

physical arrangements, with the lawyer sitting beside the other corn-,

mittee members, could give the young offender the idea that the lawyer

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1

52

is not definitely there to represent him/her. (It must be noted, however,

that the lawyer in the Walkerton Committee seemed to have been successful

in conveying the impression to the two youths witnessed in those committee

meetings, that he was representing them.)

However, based on our own observations, and compared with the other

three committes where the lawyer sits to one side of the table, and

is not so closely aligned with the committee members,

we fàel it would be more appropriate for the

Walkerton Committee to seek out some more neutral

ground, such as a church basement, where the

Committee meeting could be held.

Such an arrangement would allow for more physical alignment between

the lawyer and the child and his parents whom he is representing,

compared with the present situation where the lawyer sits amongst

• the committee members.

Time of Meeting

At present, all meetings are held in the mornings, between 9:00 a.m.

and 12:00 noon (approximately). Each young offender who is scheduled

for that particular morning, is assigned an appointment time (9:00,

9:45, 10:30, etc.), and is expected to attend at this time. In con-

trast to appearances in Court, where the young offender is required

to attend from 10:00 a.m. until his/her case is heard, this process

of assigning a specific appointment hour is commended as being much

more satisfactory. It also reinforces the concept that Diversion is

to be seen as distinct from appearances in Court.

Nevertheless, the fact that the meetings are held in the mornings,

during the working day, poses sonie problems for parents and youths

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

53

alike. Most people work during the day, and for those youths with

working parents, this appearance at the Diversion Committee meeting

may mean the loss of a day or half a day's wages.

Likewise, if the Diversion Committee is held during school term, it

is necessary for the youth to be removed from the school for that morn-

ing. If one of the objectives of the program is to avoid "labelling",

then it must be asked whether removing the child from school for a

morning is consonant with this objective. The ostrasization which can

accompany such specialized treatment, may in fact be more severe than

is necessary, if the meetings were held at some other, less inconvenient,

time.

An additional implication of the meeting times, is related to the

volunteers. By having all of the Diversion Committee meetings in the

mornings, there is thereby a restriction on the types of individuals

who are willing and able to be volunteers. While the quality of volun-

teers up to this point has been excellent, and in fact there are some

individuals, who are self-employed, who are able to take time off work

to attend the Committee meetings, the restriction of Committee meetings

to the morning hours, effectively reduces the range of available

volunteers to those people who do not hold 9:00 to 5:00 jobs. This

may or may not have an impact on the dispositions decided upon by

the committees.

We would therefore recommend that consideration be

given to moving the Committee meetings, at least once

a month, into the evening hours, (perhaps 6:00 to 9:00

p.m.), or Saturday mornings (9:00 to 12:00 a.m.) so

that youths would not need to leave school, parents

would not need to loose a day's wages, and there may

be a broader range of volunteers to sit on Committees.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

54

Length of Meeting

The Committee meetings which were attended by the consultant, were timed

in each portion. The meetings themselves were divided into five distinc-

tive parts: the Introduction, where committee members are introduced to

the youth and his family, and an explanation is given of the purpose of

_Diversion; the time when the lawyer speaks alone with the youth and his

parents; the whole committee discussion, where the youth, parents,

volunteers, Diversion Officer, and lawyer all discuss the events surround-

ing the offense; the discussion in the absence of the youth and his

parents, amongst the committee members as to what should be the terms

for the young offender; and the explanation of the terms given to the

young offender and his parents, after they have returned to the room.

In all, twelve different young offender's committee meetings were observed,

and the results are presented in Table 8 below.

TABLE 8

Mean Times (in minutes) Taken in Each Segment of Diversion Committee Meeting For Four Committees N = Number of Youths Observed.

Segment of Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge Meeting (N=3) (N=2) (N=3) (N=4)

Introduction of Committee Members & Explanation of Purpose of Diversion: 1 1 3 3

Lawyer and Youth with Parents: 20 10 13 11

Whole Committee, Youth, Parents: 25 4 17 16

Committee & Lawyer discuss Terms: 6 4 11 7

• Terms explained to Youth & Parents: 9 7 12 11

TOTAL: 61 minutes 26 minutes 55 minutes 48 minutes

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

55

As can be seen, the mean number of minutes taken for each segment, tends

to vary with the different committees. For example, the Committee

located in Owen Sound (Grey County) tends to take a much longer period

of time throughout the entire committee process. It must be remembered

that these mean times are presented on a very small number of cases, and

that caution should be exercised in interpreting the information. However,

even given this small number of cases, the numbers presented in Table 8 may be viewed as an indicator.

It was decided by the Grey County Diversion Committee, that the length

of the Diversion Committee hearing should be lengthened to 60 minutes,

to accommodate the extra length of time they tended to be taking with

cases. When there were four cases assigned to one morning (of 45 minutes

duration each), there tended to be crowding, and the Committee meetings

would run over into the afternoon. As a result, the format has been

changed to allow for only three appointments, of one hour each, to be

made for one morning.

As can be seen in Table 8, there are clearly differences across Committees

in the amount of time which is spent questioning the young offender, and

the amount of time which the young offender spends with his lawyer,

discussing the events surrounding the offense. In that there are dif-

ferences across these four committees, and in that the committees, in

theory, should be similar from a procedural standpoint,

we would recommend in the interests of justice, that

there be some consistency in these portions of the

proceedings.

We must hasten to add that we are aware that the two cases observed in

Bruce County were connected in some way with two previous cases, and as

a result not much time needed to be spent with the youth and his parents

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

56.

investigating the nature of the event. The circumstances of that offense

had already been explained in a previous Diversion Committee meeting

with the other young offenders who had been involved in the same offense.

Looking at the amount of time which the lawyer spends with the youth

and his parents (10 minutes), and the amount of time spent explaining

the terms to the youth and his parents (7 minutes), there does not

appear to be that much difference between Bruce County and the two

committees in the Region of Waterloo -- Kitchener and Cambridge. The

very short period of time spent discussing the event, and determining

'what should be the terms (4 minutes respectively), we feel, could be

attributable to the fact that the events of that offense had already

been investigated in detail at an earlier date.

We feel that the distinctions noted between Grey County and the other

three counties, are attributable in most cases to the individuals

involved on the Committee in Grey County, compared with the other

three Committees. The individuals on the Grey County Committee appear

to discuss the events surrounding the offense in much greater detail,

than do the members of the other Diversion Committees; and the lawyer

appears also to spend much more time with the young offender, discussing

the implications of illegal activities in general. Whether or not this

is appropriate, is a matter to be decided by the reviewers of this

evaluation report. It is our opinion, however, that in the interests

of justice, as mentioned earlier, there should be some consistency

across Committees as to the length of time spent questioning the youth,

and discussing the legal aspects of the offense.

Finally, in line with the overall theme of this report, concerning the

distinctions between the application of the Diversion Program in a

rural versus an urban setting, it must be said, looking at the length

of times involved in the meetings, that there appear not to be significant

differences in time spent on various aspects of the proceedings in either

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

57

rural or urban settings. With the exception of Grey County, which we

attribute to the idiosyncrasies of the Committee in that setting,

there appears to be no difference among Kitchener and Cambridge

Committees and the Bruce County Committee. The only observation that

one could make about the committee meetings is that they do appear to

take longer than 45 minutes, (allowing for normal committee meeting

time in Bruce County) and

we would therefore recommend that appointments be

re-scheduled to be 50 minutes or an hour apart,

in Kitchener and Cambridge, as opposed to 45 minutes

apart.

Settine 'Up 'Appointments

Some parents mentioned that the time between the occurence of the offense,

and the Diversion Committee meeting was overly long. A number of parents

pointed out that, given the age of the child, it would be more sensible

to have the Diversion Committee meeting closer in time to the actual

offense. In the cases of those parents who complained, the length of

time between the offense and the Diversion Committee meeting was close to

to three months. This does appear to be an overly long wait for an

appointment. •

However, it should be noted, that these observations were made during

the summer months, when the Diversion Committee meetings very often had

to be juggled around vacations of both Committee members and youths.

Nevertheless, in line with our previous recommendation that some appoint-

ment times be made available in the evenings or Saturday mornings, it may

have been the case that these long waits, of three months, resulted in

part from not being able to arrange a mutually convenient time.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

1

1 1

58

We would reiterate our previous recommendation then, as well as

recommend that the wait between offense and the

Diversion Committee meeting, not be longer than

one month, wherever possible;

8, Diversion Committee Procedures

In this section we review the actual procedures, as described in the

previous section, from the standpoint of the different Committees

observed.

Introductions

There is a difference among Committees at this stage, to the extent

that the Diversion Officer in Grey and Bruce Counties does not follow

the same introductory process as is followed in the Kitchener and

Cambridge Committees.

In Grey and Bruce, the young person is ushered into the room by the

Diversion Officer, and introduced to the lawyer in the absence of the

two volunteers. It is explained to the young person that the lawyer

will discuss with the young person his rights and explain the process

of the Diversion Committee hearing. After the youth has finished

the discussion with the lawyer, and has signed the Statement of

Responsibility, the volunteers are brought into the room, introduced,

and the whole committee discussion takes place.

In Kitchener and Cambridge, the volunteers and lawyer are all sitting

in the committee room, when the youth and his/her parents are ushered

in. Introductions then take place, the proceedings to be followed

are outlined, and then the volunteers and Diversion Officer leave

the youth and his/her parents with the lawyer.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

59

These differences do not seem to have a major impact on the process.

Rather they appear to reflect the "local-based" approach of the

Committees, and are therefore supportive of the concept of decentraliza-

tion.

Discussion With Lawyer

The next segment of the process, in both Grey and Bruce Counties,

follows the same procedure as that followed in Kitchener and Cambridge,

where the lawyer, alone with the youth and his or her parents,

discusses the events surrounding the offense, and attempts to deter-

mine whether or not the youth has a defense for the charges laid.

Before the youth accepts responsibility for the act with which he is

charged, the lawyer takes time to explain to the youth the seriousness

of the charge, as well as the possible penalties which the youth could

face, if s/he were an adult, and attending adult Court. The purpose

of this mini-lecturette, is mostly to provide the legal facts to the

youngster. Most youths are not aware of the penalties which they

could face for the offenses with which they have been charged, and

this kind of lecture, in the opinion of the lawyers interviewed, tends

to "scare" the youths somewhat. It has also been suggested, that

there is "subtle persuasion" at this stage, for the youth to admit

responsibility.

According to the lawyers interviewed, the presence of the lawyer in

this segment of the process is important in terms of pointing out

to the youth that, as young offender, s/he has rights, and is not to

be victimized; that this is designed to be a positive learning

experience. The effort is to get across the message that "the

system" will listen to them.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

All of the lawyers observed, take with them to the Diversion Committee

meeting a copy of Martin's Criminal Code of Canada. This book, which

includes all the statutes in the Criminal Code, not only is used as

a reference book to describe the penalties for various offenses, but

also, to convey the impression to the youths that again, this is a

serious business.

As noted, there are some differences across Diversion Committees,

particularly in the lengths of time spent by the lawyers discussing

with the youth and his parents the seriousness of the offense, the

consequences of the youth's actions, the costs to society, etc.

There appears to be a difference across committees in the extent to

which the lawyers take a "lecturing role", conveying to the youth

the penalties and consequences for his action.

As can be seen in Table 8 presented earlier, three Diversion Committees,

Bruce, Kitchener, and Cambridge all appear to have approximately the

same number of minutes for the lawyer's discussion with the youth and

his parents. The lawyer in the Grey County Committee however, appears

to spend approximately twice as long in this kind of discussion.

(Again, it must be remembered, that only a very few number of cases

were observed, and that it would not be wise to attribute too much

importance to the differences in the number of minutes spent on each

segment of the Committee hearing.) However, it seems that part of the

Grey County Committee's decision to allot an hour per youth, stands in

recognition of the fact that more time is spent with each youth at

this stage.

60

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

61

Whole Committee Discussion

The next segment of the committee hearings involve the whole committee,

with the Diversion Officer and volunteers returning to the room for a

discussion of the offense with the youth, family, and lawyer. It is

during this discussion that the salient features of the events surrounding

the offense are drawn out, and the youth is asked to explain the reasons

for his actions. It is also during this segment of the Committee proceed-

ings that the youth is asked questions about his behavior in school and

at home, and the parents are asked to contribute.

All those parents who were interviewed following the Diversion Committee

hearing, indicated that they felt they had had enough time to talk about

their child during the committee hearing. Only two out of the twelve

parents indicated that they would have liked to discuss their child's

problems separately, feeling that they could provide the committee

with background information which might be useful in helping the committee

make a decision about their child's disposition. None of the parents

interviewed indicated that they felt that questions directed to them by

either the Diversion Officer or volunteers, were intrusive.

In observing the four different Diversion Committees, it is our opinion

that there were some differences across Committees in the way in which

questions were asked of the youth, and the methods which were used to

get information from the youth.

Before continuing, however, it would be useful to note that the presence

of the evaluator in the Committee meeting may have had an impact on the

type of behavior elicited from some Committee members. Committee members

may have been, on the one hand, somewhat more reserved than normal, as

a result of the presence of the consultant; or alternatively may have

been more "flamboyant" than normal, for the same reason. It is difficult

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

62

for us to determine this with certainty, and so we insert this caution

as a warning that the observations made and behavior noted may not

reflect the true state of affairs in the absence of an observer.

Nevertheless, it must be said, on the basis of observations, and the

amount of time spent in the Committee meetings, as noted in Table 8,

that the volunteers in the Bruce, Kitchener, and Cambridge Committees,

were much less involved in the questioning and "lecturing" of the youth,

than were volunteers in the Grey County Committee. In the latter case,

the volunteers asked questions to the extent that some parents complained

afterwards that some of the statements made about their reactions to

their child, were not true. For example, one volunteer stated rather

strongly that the actions of the child would cause the child to "loose

the trust of his parents", while the parents disagreed quite strongly

with this statement, in the interview afterwards.

Volunteers in the Bruce, Kitchener, and Cambridge committees appeared

more to confine themselves to discussions of the events surrounding

the offense, the schooling of the child, and his activities at home;

while the volunteers in the Grey County Committee became involved in

discussions of motivation and decision making on the part of the youth.

While this rather more intense involvement of the Grey County volunteers

may reflect the "local flavour" and "local approach", it would never-

theless seem appropriate for the activities of this committee to be

observed by the Diversion Program Supervisor, or some representative

of the judiciary, to ensure that the enthusiasm of this committee

does not over-step the original boundaries of the program.

One aspect which was observed in the Committee meetings, and which it

is probably important for the different committees to make a note of,

is the explanations to the youth as to the process being followed,

and the reasons for each segment of the process. In all committee

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

63

meetings observed, the youth was either surprised, or confused, about

being asked again to describe the events surrounding the offense, to

the committee, after having gone through the whole thing immediately

prior to that, with the lawyer. Given that the youths in almost all

cases where quite frightened by the proceedings,

we wouZd recommend that, at the beginning of the

discussion with the whole committee, the youth be

reminded that the volunteers had not heard the

discussion which has just taken place with the

lawyer, and that they would like to hear, in the

youth's own words, a description of the events

that happened.

Discussion of Diversion Terms

The next segment of the procedures, when the youth and his parents

leave the room, and the Committee members, (the Diversion Officer,

volunteers, and lawyer) discuss the Terms of the Agreement for the

youth, does not appear to be significantly different across the four

Committees observed, in terms of the length of time spent in this

activity. What is different however, is the extent of participation

of the lawyer in these discussions.

According to the Diversion Manual, it is the role of the lawyer to act

as a reference and resource for the Committee, so that the volunteers

may know what kind of disposition might be ordered by a judge in a

similar situation, thereby making the Diversion dispositions as similar

as possible to what might be received in Court for a similar offense.

The lawyer also, as a representative of the child, plays the role of

advocate on behalf of the child, defending his rights against any

possible infringement by the committee. It is at this stage of the

Committee meeting as mentioned, that the two roles played by the

lawyer become most intertwined. On the one hand the lawyer defends

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

64

the right of his client; on the other, he confers with the committee

concerning possible dispositions for his client.

We have discussed this conflict in roles in an earlier section and would

refer the reader to that section where we recommended that lawyers state

clearly what would be a typical disposition and then withdraw from further

discussion.

Explanation of Terms to Youth and Parents

Finally, after the youth and his parents have been ushered back into

the meeting room, the agreed-upon Diversion Terms are explained by the

Diversion Officer. The Officer, after reading the Terms to the youth,

asks the youth first, whether s/he understands what is being required,

and secondly, whether s/he will have any difficulty complying with any

of the Terms of the Agreement. The officer also asks the parents

whether or not they agree with the Terms which have been set down, and

whether there are any other terms which they feel should be added to

the Agreement.

In discussion with the youthswho were involved in the Diversion

Committees observed, it appears that this segment of the'proceedings

is least understood by the young people. Bearing in mind that,

especially with younger youths, the whole process, has been rather frighten-

ing and possibly traumatic experience, it would probably be best to

determine very clearly that the youths understand what is being required

of them at this stage. As a result,

We recommend that every effort be made by Diversion

Officers, to ensure that youths, and their parents,

understand cZearZy what is being required of them.

• THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

65

This could include, if the youth appears to fail to understand,

determining that the parent(s) understand, and requiring that they

explain the Terms to the youth; or it could mean having the Diversion

Officer telephone the family the day after the Committee meeting,

speaking to the youth, and requiring the youth to explain to the Officer,

in his/her own words, what were the Terms, and what the Terms mean.

Initial Impact of the Meeting

In discussion with youths and their parents after the meetings, all

parents and youths felt that the meeting had had a positive impact on

them, and that the major effect, for the youths involved, was that they

would probably not become involved in any illegal activities in future.

Some parents indicated that this kind of committee meeting, with con-

cerned citizens asking pertinent questions about the youth's life and

future, could really help a child who has made a mistake, and does not

intend to "carry on with a life of crime".

Volunteers were also asked to provide their impressions of the impact

of the meeting on young offenders. One indicated that the Diversion

Committee meeting would definitely have a positive impact on those

youths who had gone astray and needed to be re-guided. However, this

same volunteer indicated that he felt that those youths who were

going to continue to get into trouble, would probably not be affected

by the Diversion Committee proceedings. He felt that there was a group

of youngsters who view any form of authority with contempt, and whose

peer group provides so much reinforcement for anti-social behavior

that there is no reward in following "the straight and narrow".

All parents indicated that they would prefer their children attend the

Diversion Committee meeting, as opposed to going to Court, for a first

offense. All indicated that in Court, the limited amount of time which

is reserved for each child, and the majesty of the situation, tends to

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

have the impact of frightening the child to such an extent that very

little information is retained by the child, about the event. In

the Diversion Committee meeting however, parents noted that more time

is spent explaining to the child his/her responsibility towards the

community, and linking his actions with consequences. All viewed this

as a positive aspect of the program.

All lawyers - interviewed indicated that for a first offense, Diversion

has much more impact than Court. In Court, with the very heavy case

loads that most judges have, the amount of time allotted to a given

youngster is short, approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Most of this time,

in fact, is taken up with following procedural steps such as reading

the information, reading the Crown Brief, ascertaining the birth date

of the youth, etc. Very little time is allowed for the judge to address

the youth, or for the youth to ask questions. In nine out of ten cases,

as described by one lawyer, the outcome of the Court proceedings is a

probationary term, and the remainder of the child's "rehabilitation" is

left up to the Probation Officer.

In the Diversion Committee meetings, the child is more aware of what

happens, and remembers more after he leaves, according to lawyers

interviewed. Another lawyer indicated that one of the impacts on the

.youth is that the youth comes away with the impression that someone,

in the system, cares about them. The sentences meeted out are much

more responsive to the individual young offender than in the Court

setting.

It appears therefore, on the basis of interviews with the participants

in the Diversion Committee Meetings, that the initial impact of the

meetings is positive; and that, at least in the short term, Diversion

is being viewed as a reasonable, and equitable solution for dealing

with young offenders on first offense.

66

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

9. Terms of Diversion Agreement

In this section we present the results of our analysis of those cases

accepted by the four Diversion Committees under study, in the twelve

month period beginning September 1981. The results of this analysis

are presented in Table 9, below.

67

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

TABLE 9 68

Break-down of Diversion Terms by Diversion Committee for period September 1981 - August 1982. (Accepted Cases Only)

Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge

N=79 N=38 N=129 N=118 Restitution: $'s

Total $'s $1,375.55 $516.00 $2,754.55 $518.32

% Cases in Which Ordered: 23% 34% 11% ' 18%

Median*Amount Ordered: $ 22.50 $ 20.00 $ 42.50 $ 16.66

Restitution: Hours

Total Hours: 0 10 296 0

% Cases in Which Ordered: 0% 16% 5% 0%

Median*Amount Ordered (Hours): - 10 30 -

CSO: Hours Total Hours: 1,080 420 2,532 1255

% Cases in Which Ordered: 54% 50% 74% 50%

Mean Amount Ordered (Hours): 25 22 26 20

Fines: $'s Total $'s $672.00 $235.00 $1,060.00 $1,177.00

% Cases in Which Ordered 33% 37% 37% 87%

Mean Amount Ordered: $ 26.00 $ 16.00 $ 32.00 $ 10.00

Apology:

Total Number Ordered 64 33 114 90

% Cases in Which Ordered 81% 87% 88% 76%

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

69

TABLE 91Continued)

Breakdown of Diversion Terms by County.

Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge

N=78 N=38 N=129 N=118

'Essay: Words

Total Number Words Ordered: 12,000 Words 2,700 Words 124 Essays 101 Essays

% Cases in Which Ordered: 33% 18% 96% 86%

Median Amount Ordered (Words): 500 500 ? ?

Success (9 months)

Cases Accepted: 45 21 81 83

% Successful Termination: 91% 100% 86% 87%

* Median, in a skewed distribution, is a more accurate measure of central tendency, and so has been used instead of Mean

1

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

JO_

Looking first at restitution, there does not seem to be a significant

difference across the four committees in terms of the percent of cases

in which monetary restitution was ordered. (It should be noted, in

studying Table 9, that the measure of central tendency reported in

some cases has been the Median, whereas in other cases it is the Mean.

When a distribution has been skewed by the introduction of one or two

outlying observations, the mean is not a very good measure of central

tendency. As a result, in those cases where the distribution is

skewed, the median has been reported as a measure of central tendency.)

In Kitchener, the median amount of restitution hours ordered appears

to be higher than in the three other committees under review. This

however, does not appear to be related to any other finding, and we

can offer no explanation for this difference. The ordering of res-

titution hours do not appear to be a disposition which broke along

rural or urban lines. It was ordered mainly by the Kitchener Committee.

The committees in Grey and Cambridge did not order any restitution

hours, while the committee in Bruce only ordered restitution in 6 out

of 38 cases (16%).

Community Service Orders were a popular disposition in all four Committees,

again being more popular in Kitchener than they were in the three others.

Grey, Bruce, and Cambridge committees all awarded CSO hours at approximately

the same number of times (approximately 50% of cases), and all four

committees appeared to order approximately the same number of hours (20 to

25 hours per case).

Interestingly enough, the percentage of cases in which the fines were

ordered was much higher in Cambridge (87%) compared with the other three

Diversion Committees. However, the mean amount ordered in Cambridge was

considerably lower ($10.00) than the mean amount ordered in the other

three committees. It might be hypothesized that, while the Diversion

Committee members in Cambridge felt that a fine was an appropriate

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

disposition in a number of cases, they also did not feel there was any

point in being overly punitive in regards to the amount of the fine.

Fines in Grey and Kitchener tended to be more, on average, per case,

than were fines in Bruce and Cambridge. Again, there was no distinction

along rural versus urban lines.

All Committees appears to believe, to the same extent, in the value

of an apology. In approximately the same percentage of cases (around

80%) apologies were ordered by all four Committees. In some cases the

apologies ordered were in person, and in other cases they were to be

written. We do not have information on the break-down on these two.

The most startling difference between the urban and the rural application

of the Diversion Program is seen in the extent to which the writing of

an essay is seen as a useful disposition in an urban setting, compared

with the two rural committees. In a very high percentage of cases

(86% for Cambridge and 96% for Kitchener), essays were ordered for the

youths. In contrast, in a much lower percentage of cases in Grey (33%) and Bruce Committees (18%), were essays ordered. It is difficult to

know whether or not these differences reflect the orientation of the

Committee members themselves, the Diversion Officer himself, or the

rural versus urban influences. It might be hypothesized however, that

in the urban setting, the recourse to the written word is much more

prominent, whereas in the rural setting, the concept of work for money,

preferably outdoors, is more fully appreciated and reinforced.

One of the original hypotheses of this study, that the distinctions

between the rural and urban setting would most commonly be noted in

the extent to which Community Service work was ordered, has not in fact

been supported. The original assumption was that Community Service

Orders would be more difficult to find in the country, and as a result,

there would be a difference between the number of orders which were

'given in rural settings, versus those to be found in urban settings.

71

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

72

To the extent that more Community Service Orders are ordered in Kitchener,

this hypothesis has been supported. However, the percentage of cases in

which Community Service Orders are ordered in Grey, Bruce, and the

Cambridge committees, is not that different. In that approximately 50%

of cases had CSO's ordered in these three Committees, it could be

concluded that the availability of Community Service work in a rural

setting has not proved to be that much of a barrier compared to what

was originally anticipated. The CSO's in the two rural counties,

Grey and Bruce, however, may well involve the parents of the child in

setting up the Community Service work, to a greater extent than do the

two Committees in Kitchener and Cambridge. The Diversion Officer in

Grey and Bruce counties indicated that parents are encouraged to assist

their youngster in seeking out Community Service work settings, and

to this extent there is a distinction between the rural and the urban

applications of the Diversion Program.

Attitudes to Diversion Terms

From interviews with various respondents, it is apparent that the Terms

of the Agreement appear to be taken very seriously by the youths involved.

There is consensus amongst Diversion Officers, volunteers, and lawyers,

that the work involved in Community Service work, and in restitution

hours, is probably the most beneficial learning experience attached to

the Diversion Terms. Following closely, in the eyes of these respondents,

is the experience of the apology, as is reflected in the high percentage

of the cases in which apologies are ordered (approximately 80% in all

four Committees). Volunteers and Diversion Officers alike indicated

that they feel apologies are extremely important, not only in terms of

emphasizing to the child the damage which s/he may have done to an

individual, or to the community, but also to bring home the fact that

this exercise is to be a learning experience for the youth. One of

the most important ways to experience this learning event, is to come

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

face-to-face with the victim of the offense, and learn from his/her

reactions, the kind of impact that the young offender's actions have

had on others.

In discussions with the youths and their parents following the Diversion

Committee meetings, it is apparent that the Terms handed out in all

cases were considered to be fair and equitable, and in fact in some

cases were seen as being more lenient than what the parent would have

imposed if s/he had been responsible for the decision.

An important factor to note, howeiter, is that in two cases observed, the

young people dealt with in Diversion, had been involved in the offense,

with other youngsters who had been through the same Diversion Committee

at an earlier date. The Diversion Terms handed out to these other

youngsters, in some cases differed from that which was handed out in the

meetings which were observed. In interviews afterwards, both parents

and young people indicated concern as to why they did not get the same

disposition as their friend, who had been involved in the same activity

and charged with the same offense.

Through being involved in the discussions when the Diversion Terms were

being determined by the volunteers and the Diversion Officer, it was

apparent to the consultant that decisions were being made based on the

needs of the individual youth, and not on the feeling of necessity to

have a totally identical set of Terms for each youngster.

However, we would recommend in future that, particularly

in cases where two or more youths are involved in the

saine illegal activity, and both are referred to Diver-

sion, that if there are any discrepancies in the Diver-sion Terms handed out to each of these youngsters, that

these discrepancies be explained to the youngster and his

parents,

73

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

74

1 so that the positive moves which are being made in the direction of

convincing youngsters that "the system works", and that justice is

fair, are not retarded by this seeming discrepancy, and possible

inequity.

Psychological Assessments

At present, it is not possible for a Diversion Committee to order a

psychological assessment for a youth who comes before the Committee.

As discussed earlier, when the possible dispositions for youths were

mentioned, it was also pointed out that if a Committee feels that a

particular youth has emotional or psychological problems which might

be helped by counselling, then a Committee is free to "recommend

strongly" that the youth and his parents attend counselling. If

the parents feel that this is an appropriate step to take, and set

up an appointment for the youth, then the youth, under the terms of

the Diversion Agreement, is required to attend. However, this decision

'must first be made by the parents of the youth, the Committee cannot

order this as a Term of the Agreement.

Should the members of the Committee feel that the particular youth's •

problems are so serious that attendance at counselling should be

compulsory, then it is the prerogative of the committee to terminete

the Diversion Committee meeting at that point, and refer the youth

back to court, as only the Court can order a psychological assessment

on a youth.

In the course of our investigations, the concern was expressed, that

this restriction, of having to refer a youth back to court before any

psychological assessment could be done, was unnecessary, and that

Diversion Committees should have the jurisdiction to order psychological

assessments, themselves. It was the opinion of one or two respondents,

who expressed this view, that the expertise exists on the committee to

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

75

make the appropriate assessments of the youth, and arrive at such a decision. However, it seems that this opinion was expressed only by those who felt that the position of Diversion Officer should be filled by a qualified Probation and Aftercare Officer (PACO), who, indeed, would have the necessary qualifications to . make such judgements.

However, following the reasoning that the only way that the Diversion Program is going to be workable, (and possibly affordable), is if the position of Diversion Officer is not filled by a PACO, it would seem sensible to keep the ordering of psychological assessments, as the exclusive prerogative of the Cdurt, with the Diversion Committees able to recommend counselling, or to refer back to the Court if the emotional problems experienced by the youth are seen as being too severe. As a result,

we would reconrmend that the present situation of

referring back to court for a psychological assess-

ment, be continued.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP'

76

DIVERSION PROGRAM: OUTCOMES

In this section we address the issues of short term success (completions

of the Diversion Program), the results of our four-month follow-up on

the youngsters observed in the Diversion Committee meetings, including

perceptions of the young people and satisfaction level with the program.

Finally, we attempt to address the question of recidivism.

1. Completions: Short Term Success

In Table 10 below, we present the program statistics for the period

September 1981 to August 1982, in the four Diversion Committees under

study.

TABLE 10

Program Statistics for Period September 1981 to August 1982 in Four Diversion Committees.

Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge

Referred to Program: 100 44 150 127

• Rejected by Committee: 10 4 9 2

• New Charge: 0 1 11 4 ,

• Not Guilty: 11 1 1 3

Accepted: (Sept. 81 - Aug. 82): 79 38 129 118

• Failed to Comply: 5 0 19 8

Accepted*. (Sept. 81 - May 82): 45 21 81 83

Successful Completions: (Sept. 81 - May 82): 41 21 70 72

% Success: 91% 100% 86% 87%

*Successful completion data were only available for the nine month period beginning September 1981.

1 77

1

It appears that there is a marginally higher success rate in the two

rural Diversion Committees in the rural setting, compared with the two

in the urban setting. However, this difference is so small as to be

negligible, and almost certainly is not significant statistically. As

a measure of program effectiveness, this relatively high percent success

rate indicates that at least in the short term, over the three to six

month time frame that the Terms of Agreement are in operation, some

form of success is being achieved.

In the bottom half of the Table 10, we present data concerning the success rate of those individuals who were accepted into the program.

Because the data which was available to us, only covered the nine

month period beginning September 1981, the numbers presented as accepted

in that time frame,represent only the total number of clients who were

accepted in nine month period.

As can be seen, in this Table is presented those total numbers of young

offenders who were referred to the program in each committee, the

numbers rejected by the committee as not being suitable, the numbers

who were charged prior to the Diversion Committee meeting, and the numbers

of those who pleaded not guilty, and therefore were not included in the

Committee meeting proceedings. Below that are the total numbers of

individuals who were accepted into the program, and were assigned

Diversion Terms. For the period September 1981 to August 1982, those individuals who failed to comply with the terms, are indicated in the

row immediately following.

Immediately below that are the numbers of successful completions, and

the percent success rate.

It is interesting to look at the perceptions of those involved in the

Diversion process -- volunteers, police officers, and diversion officers --

to see, to what these individuals attribute the success of the program.

Interviews with these various groups reveal a number of consistent themes.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

78

Most respondents indicated that involvement in the Diversion Program had

been a useful learning experience for the young people. Many of the

young people who were charged for offenses, it was felt by these res-

pondents, were not aware of what they were getting themselves involved

in, when they originally committed the offense. In addition, by being

able to spend time with community volunteers who are willing to discuss

the events surrounding the offense, as well as other activities in the

youngsters life, the youngster has an opportunity to learn about the

justice system, and possibly about his responsibilities to society.

Failure to Comply

The Diversion Terms for young offenders who failed to comply with the

Terms, were examined, to see if there were any consistent themes.

These data, for the four Committees under review, are presented in

Table 11, below.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

79

TABLE 11

Terms of Diversion Agreements For those Young Offenders who Failed to Comply (September 1981 - May, 1982)

Terms of Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge Diversion Agreement N=5 (11%) N=0 N=19 (21%) N=8 (10%)

Average Length of Term (months): 6 - 4 3

Restitution $'s Total: $527.50 - $257.49 $30.00

• Average $'s $250.00 - $ 22.30 $15.00

Restitution: Total Hours: 0 - 90 0

. Average Hours: 0 - 45 -

CSO Total Hours: 120 - 348 85

• Average CSO Hours: 30 - 25 20

Fines: Total $ Amount: $ 5.00 - $155.00 $115.00

. Average $ Fine: $ 5.00 - $ 21.67 $ 14.38

Apology 3 - 17 6

• % Cases w/ Apology 60% 89% 75%

Essay 1 - 19 6

• % Cases w/ Essay 20% - 100% 75%

New Charge 1 - 4 0

• % Cases w/ New Charge: 20% - 21% -

Original Charges N % N % N %

Theft Under $200.00 4 80% - 12 58% 2 25%

Theft Over $200.00 0 - _ 0 - 2 25%

Break & Enter 1 20% - 1 6% 3 37%

Break, Enter & Theft 0 - - 2 12% 0 -

Narcotics Possession/ 0 - - 1 6% 1 13% Trafficking

Auto Theft 0 - - 1 6% 0 -

Possession 0 - - 1 6% 0 -

Mischief 0 - - 1 6% 0 -

1 THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

80

It might be hypothesized that those youths who failed to comply had been

assigned harsher Terms, than those who had complied and completed their

Terms. Following this hypothesis, it might be suggested that those

failing to comply had resulted from a feeling of injustice on the part

of the youths concerned.

Comparing the data presented in Table 11, with that of Table 9, presented earlier, it appears that this hypothesis is partially supported by the

data from the Grey Committee, and not supported by data in the Kitchener

and Cambridge Committees. It is interesting to note, that there were

no youths who failed to comply in Bruce County. It is unclear whether

this reflects a rural influence -- that is, that youths in a rural

setting tend to take more seriously the whole issue of Diversion -- or not. There are not enough data to prove or disprove this suggestion.

In Grey County, while it has been suggested that the above hypothesis

concerning "harsher" dispositions had been partially supported, it

should be noted that a very small number of cases (N=5) are contributing to this data pool. As a result, caution should be exercised when

interpreting these data.

It appears, in the Grey County cases, that those youths who failed to

comply had, on average, been given a longer term of Diversion (six months),

than had most other youths dealt with by the Grey Committee (three months).

As well, the mean number of restitution dollars required to be repaid

( $250.00), by those youths who failed to comply, was considerably more

than the median amount ordered ( $22.50) for all Grey County cases, on

which restitution had been ordered. Additionally, the average number

of CSO hours (30 hours) ordered for those who failed to comply in Grey

County, was higher than the average for all cases (25 hours) in that

County.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

81

However, it should also be noted in Grey County, that the number of

cases who failed to comply, had, on average, been required to pay less

fine money, give fewer apologies, and write fewer essays, than the

majority of Grey County cases.

The dispositions for those cases in Kitchener who failed to comply,

generally, were not that different from the average case as shown

earlier in Table 7. With the exception of being required to complete,

on average, almost twice as many CSO hours, the dispositions were similar.

Likewise, for Cambridge, dispositions for those who failed to comply,

were, in general, similar to the average case.

The types of charges for those who failed to comply, in Grey County

reflected almost identically, those charges for the majority of the

cases. Most cases who failed to comply (80%) were for Theft Under

$200.00 or shoplifting, just as were most cases (76%) for Grey County,

in general.

There was a slight difference in the types of cases who failed to comply

in Kitchener and in Cambridge. There were slightly more cases who

failed to comply, who had been charged with Theft Under (58%), than

there were generally in Kitchener caseload (39%). And in Cambridge

there were fewer failure to comply Theft Under cases (25%) than for the

whole caseload (54%). These differences, however, are not of a magnitude

to warrant particular attention; nor do there appear to be any consistent

themes from which conclusions could be drawn.

2. Changed Perceptions of Clients: Short-Term Effectiveness

A telephone follow-up was conducted on those clients who had been observed

in the four Diversion Committee meetings, four months after they had

attended the Committee meeting. Of these cases observed, one had been

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

82

returned to Court for failure to comply, and one had been charged with

a second offense. Neither of these individuals or their parents were

able to be contacted.

All those youngsters who were followed up indicated that they felt that

the program'had been helpful to them, and that their major motivation

for not failing to comply with the Terms of the Agreement, was the

prospect of being retufned to Court and facing a Judge on the same

charges. All youngsters apparently had been impressed with the serious-

ness of the situation, and had complied with the Terms of the Diversion

Agreement, because of their concern of the consequences if they did not.

Some parents particularly noted that the whole process had really given

their child cause to think about his or her actions; that the child had

learned that he could not get away with what he had done, and that he

had to pay for his actions.

All parents who were interviewed indicated that their children were much

better now than they had been earlier. The Diversion Program had had

a positive impact on their child's attitudes, as in some cases, the young

person was helping much more around the house, and was being more co-

operative. One' youngSter, according to his mother, had been avoiding

the video arcade since his involvement with the Diversion Committee,

and seemedeto be trying very hard at home to be co-operative and compliant.

Parents highlighted different aspects of the Diversion Terms, as having

more or less impact on their children. One aspect which appeared to

have a fairly heavy impact on the children was the apology to the victim.

The impact of coming face-to-face with the victim of the young person's

wrong doing, was a very telling event for many youths. Some expressed

the feeling that they were embarassed by the contact with the victim,

while others indicated that they felt shy, and uncertain.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

83

A general theme which appeared to emerge from the interviews, was that

the young people now have more respect for the consequences of their

actions, and seemed to have incorporated the notion that there is a

connection between actions and outcomes. This kind of connection is

reinforced by observations of police officers as to the changed per-

ceptions of the young people, after becoming involved in the Diversion

Project. Particularly in small towns, where the police officers are

more likely to run into the young person on the street, the police

officers indicated that sending a youth to Diversion had the impact of

changing the young person's perceptions of the law and the Courts.

It is possible that the "mini-lecture" at the beginning of the Diversion

Committee proceedings, delivered by the lawyer, incorporating information

about the penalties which could be faced if the juvenile were to go to

Court on the same charge, as an adult, has the biggest impact. Without

doing a controlled study it is impossible to determine which aspects of

the Diversion Committee meeting had the greatest impact on the youth.

However, in speculation, it might be possible to suggest that this portion

of the meeting, when the lawyer impresses upon the youth the outcomes

for such illegal activities, has a fairly strong impact.

Soffe police officers described the situation prior to the Diversion program, especially in a rural setting. If a young person had been

sent to Court, and the case was adjourned sine die, then the police

officer felt very frustrated and defeated that his/her investigative

activities had been for no purpose whatsoever. Young people who had

been sent to Court and were adjourned sine die, it is said by police

officers, tended to come out of Court with very little respect for the

law, in fact some officers indicated that young people were "laughing"

at the whole legal system.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

The Diversion process, however, has much different impact on the

young people, according to police officers. After 45 minutes with the

Committee, experiencing their question, and listening to the comments

of the volunteers, the young people now have a much better sense of

the power of the law and the legal system, and understand much better

that there are consequences for their actions. These police officers

indicated that they felt there had been a change in the perceptions

of the youngsters, as a result of involvement in the Diversion Program.

3. Client Satisfaction

After four months, all parents and youths were asked whether or not

they felt the program had helped the youths involved. Responses to

this question drew such answers from the young people as "I learned

my lesson", "I don't want to get into trouble again, I'll have to go

to Family Court if I do", "I was sorry I did wrong", "I stayed out

of trouble because they told me to; I won't get into trouble again

because it's wrong to break the law", "I've been listening to Mom

and Dad; I've learned my lesson", and "I've learned not to do it,

it's wrong".

Parents who were interviewed indicated that they feel in general that

the program has benefited their children. Parents provided such

responses as "He's learned that you can't get away with it, you have

to pay for what you do", "He's had an opportunity to do something

positive as opposed to just paying a fine; He's learned that other's

are willing to help him. All of it was very good, it helped him

realize that he has responsibilities." "The best part is knowing

that now there's a name and a phone number to get assistance if I

need it; the program has definitely been a benefit". "The whole thing

was really effective; I was really glad there was a program, it has

given us another chance". "Yes, my son has definitely benefited from

84

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

85

the program". And "It's been most valuable -- it explained what could

have happened if he didn't comply with the Terms; something like this opens up a kid's mind and gets him thinking".

Only one parent indicated that she felt there should have been more contact between the Diversion Officer and herself and her son. This individual felt that it was the role of the Diversion Officer to keep in touch with the family, and that more emphasis should be placed on that role instead of "leaving it up to the parents".

All parents and youths who were interviewed after the Diversion Committee meeting, as mentioned, indicated that they would have preferred to become involved in the Diversion Process as opposed to going to Juvenile Court on the same charge. Parents mentioned such factors as the fact that their son would not get a record, as a result of going to the Diversion Project compared with Court; that their son has an opportunity to repay a financial debt to society, and that their son is given some initiative as a result of participating in this program. Others mentioned

that the opportunity of having a second chance was particularly beneficial and a "wonderful idea for juveniles". Parents indicated that they were "quite impressed" and that Court is "worse on kids psychologically, because it is so much more serious".

Other parents mentioned that Diversion given the youth a chance to realize what could have been the alternative, if they had not gone to the Diversion project, as the impact of Court was described to them. One mother in particular, mentioned that in Court, her son would not have understood what the Judge was saying to him, because he would

have been so frightened. In the Diversion Committee meeting, the young offender had a better chance to comprehend what was going on, which was seen as a positive result by his mother. Another mother mentioned that Diversion was much better because the youth got more individual attention than he would in Court, and in the Diversion Committee meeting the volunteers spoke directly to him, and he could speak back.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

86

It seems in conclusion then, that the Diversion Program has a positive

impact on both the youth and his parents, in terms of satisfaction with

the actual process. Satisfaction appears to exist not only with the

process of the meeting itself, but also with the intent of the program,

and the impact which the various aspects of the program, the Terms of

the Diversion Agreements, have on the young people involved.

Another measure of client satisfaction, is clearly the impact on the

police officers who are involved in the Diversion Program. Anecdotally,

it seems from discussions with police officers in Grey and Bruce

Counties, that more young people appear now to be charged with offenses

than were prior to the Diversion Project. We refer the reader back to

an earlier discussion concerning this matter, where the data, as presented

in Table 1, do not seem to support this contention.

Regardless, however, one of the major impacts of sending youngsters to

Diversion, has been according to police officers, that the police

officers'image in the community has been enhanced. Police officers are

now able, because of the existence of a Diversion program as a discre-

tionary option, to impress upon young people who are apprehended breaking

the law, that there are consequences for such actions -- the major

consequence being that they are charged, and face the possibility of a

criminal juvenile record. Police indicated in discussions, that the

perceived enhanced "clout" which they now have, has meant that they are

regarded with much more respect in the community by young people.

4. Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

In this section we discuss the results of our interviews with our

various respondents, concerning their own perceptions of the immediate

and short-terni effectiveness of the Diversion Program.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

87

Short-Term Effectiveness: General Perceptions

Generally, there was an overall feeling of satisfaction expressed with

the Diversion Program, by all those individuals interviewed. Some

individuals, however, were more skeptical than others about the potential

impact of the program on the young offenders, in the long term.

There was minority opinion expressed, that there are essentially two

groups of young people who are involved in criminal activities at

present. One group, the "good kids", consists of individuals who come

from good family backgrounds and who have made a "mistake" in committing

an illegal activity. It is beiieved by this minority, that it will

only take one brush with the law, and an experience such as a Diversion

Committee meeting, to return these youngsters to a law-abiding way of

life. For these youngsters, the Diversion Committee exercise, is more

than beneficial, and is certainly more helpful to these youngsters, in

the opinions of their respondents, than would be an appearance in Court.

The other group of youngsters, the "bad kids", are seen as those young

people who will get in trouble whether or not they have an opportunity

such as the one presented to them in the Diversion Program. The opinion

of the respondents on this group of youngsters, is that no amount of

"scare tactics", or lectures from community-minded citizens, will have

an impact on these young people. These young people will get in trouble

with the law again, and "are on the road to a life of crime" regardless

of any intervention by any legal authority.

It must be remembered however, that this point of view represents only

that of a minority of respondents, in most cases either police officers

or lawyers, those individuals who come in contact with a good number of

young people in trouble with the law. Others, however, significantly

volunteers, Diversion Officers, and some other police officers, feel that

the Diversion Program itself, does have a positive impact on youngsters,

and is effective from a short term standpoint.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

88

Police Perceptions of Effectiveness

As one police officer expressed it, when a young person is sent to

Court on a first offense, the most likely disposition is a term of

probation. In this case, the Judge places a lot of responsibility

for the future of the youth, on the Probation Officer, and not too

much on the parents of the child. With the Diversion Program however,

as one officer expressed it, the parents are much more involved, and

the parent-child bond is strengthened, to the advantage of the youth.

In the Diversion Program, the kind of structure provided in the Terms

of the Agreement, is very often appreciated by both the parents and

the youths involved. Very often, young people come from families

where there is very little structure and having this kind of advice

handed to both the parents and the youth in a semi-judicial setting,

has a good deal of positive impact.

Another positive spinoff, as noted by police officers, connected with

the strengthening of the bonds between parent and children, is the

positive response which parents have had towards the Diversion Program.

Police officers interviewed, noted that parents tend to be much more

co-operative and responsive to police officers, when they know that the

end result of the laying of a charge, will be a Diversion Term for their

child, than if the officer is going to refer the case to Court. One

officer noted, that if the child was charged and sent to Court, then

the parents tend to "tighten up", refuse to respond, and become much more

protective of their child, in a defensive way. However, when the youth

is sent to the Diversion Committee meeting, the effect on the parents is

more co-operation and participation not only in the Diversion Committee

meeting itself, but also with the police officer's investigation of the

offense prior to the meeting. After the meeting, according to police,

the parents tend to be more responsive to the Diversion Officers, than

they were previously to Probation Officers, and this also has a positive

impact on the long term effectiveness of the program.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

judges'Perceptions of Effectiveness

All judges interviewed were asked about their perceptions of the short

term effectiveness of the Diversion Program for younC people.

One judge indicated that the Diversion Program shows the youth that

there is responsibility beyond the family and it establishes a relation-

ship between the victim and the offender. While doing this, the Diversion

Project at the same time keeps the young person out of the Court. This

particular Judge felt that it was best to keep young people out of Court,

as a juvenile record has a significant impact a number of years down

the road. He felt that Diversion was well worth the effort on a pre-court

basis, as it gives the parents and the youth a chance to sort out the

problems that are surrounding the offense, and at the same time not being

too punitive.

Another Judge indicated that the Diversion Program had been beneficial

not only for the young offenders, but for the Courts itself. The police

departments, as a result of the Diversion Program being set up, may now

feel that the judicial system has more credibility. As a result, more

young people are being charged and sent to the Diversion Project than

were previously.

Lawyers' Perceptions of Effectiveness

One of the lawyers interviewed indicated that he felt the program would

have an impact on the young offenders in the short-term, to the extent

that the young offender would learn that he has responsibilities to the

community. This lawyer felt that, provided these kinds of relationships

were made clear to the young offender, the young offender would under-

stand the consequences of his actions much more than he would in a Court

setting. In the process of court dates, and adjournments, the young

89

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

90

offender sometimes gets "lost in the shuffle". But in Diversion, the

young offender receives individual attention.

Another lawyer indicated that for the first offense, Diversion has more

impact than Court. In Court, the case load is very heavy and Judges do

not have much time to devote to each young offender. This particular

lawyer felt that the children who were involved in Diversion tended to

be more aware of what had happened after they left the process, in

Diversion, being more relaxed and comfortable, than they had been in

Court.

Another lawyer indicated that Diversion, compared with Court, received

a favourable grading. In Diversion, the young people have a better

understanding of the process, which increases the chances of the whole

exercise becoming a useful learning experience. He also indicated that

the Diversion Committee meeting is a more intimate experience -- "a

cleansing process" -- which, while not being an inquisition, is never-

theless a thorough going-over for the young person and his family.

The dispositions of the Diversion Committee hearings tend to be more

responsive to the individual young offenders.

Finally, from the point of view of a Duty Counsel, Diversion can be a

more satisfying process. In Court, the young person has so many

questions which the Duty Counsel, because of time pressure, is unable

to answer adequately. In the Diversion Committee meeting, much more

time is available for more individualized attention such as this, as

the lawyer can explain all aspects to the youth, and answer any of his/her

questions.

Volunteers' Perceptions of Effectiveness

Volunteers in general felt that the program had a positive impact on

the young people. Some specifically mentioned that the program had a

bigger impact on the young people than Court did; as, in Diversion,

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP •

91

there were consequences for actions, such as work in Community Service

Orders. Young people are shown that they must take responsibility for

what they have done. In addition, volunteers mentioned, that in the

Diversion Committee meeting there is time to talk with the young people

about their needs, as well as discussing these findings, with the parents

of the young people.

Other volunteers noted that the impact of the Diversion Program on the

young offender, seemed to vary with the individual young offender .

For those youths who treated the program seriously, the impact of the

Diversion Committee meeting could be quite significant, as it could be

quite a frightening experience for the young people. However, for those

youths and parents who treated the program like a joke, then not very

much would be obtained from the program. One volunteer mentioned that

it seemed to him that the major role of the Diversion Program appeared

to be to "monitor effective parenting".

• Another volunteer concurred with the view that the impact varies with

the attitude of the young person. He felt that in Diversion, as a

volunteer, he was very often faced with young people who are "in the

middle", who could "go either left or right". He say his role as a

volunteer to try and "push" the youngsters in the right direction.

As a result of this pushing in the right direction, he felt that some

progress was being made, and that some impact was being had on the

young people who passed through their Diversion Committee meeting.

Diversion Officers' Perceptions

Of the Diversion Officers interviewed, all felt that there was an

impact of the Diversion Program on a short term basis. Such factors as

the young offender learning that he must be accountable for his actions,

and the support of parents carrying out these activities, were seen as

beneficial aspects of the program. Another Diversion Officer mentioned

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

92

that having no juvenile record is a factor which is appreciated by many

young offenders, and serves as an incentive to continue with this kind

of legal as opposed to illegal activities.

Follow-Vp Interviews

In doing our follow-up interviews, which were carried out over the

telephone four months after the young people had been observed in the

Diversion Committee meeting, one of our objectives, besides attempting

to determine how successful the program had been from the attitudes

of the individuals involved, was to see whether or not there had been

further charges laid.

Of the nine people interviewed, seven had not had further charges laid.

Two young people had been returned to Court, one because of failure to

comply with the Diversion Terms, and the other, because of a second

charge. The percent rate of success (seven successful out of nine)

is approximately 77%.

Interestingly enough, those two who were returned to Court for failure

to comply and a new charge, respectively, had, during their Diversion

Committee meeting, impressed the volunteers with the reduced likelihood

that they would be successful in the program. The volunteers in this

particular committee felt that the Diversion Program would probably

not work for these two individuals, and it seems, they were right in

their perceptions.

While this is clearly a short-term measure of effectiveness -- program

completion -- it is nevertheless an indicator of recidivism rates for

these youngsters. Anecdotal information collected from police interviewees

suggests that young people who are going to be re-charged, will be re-

charged within one or two months of the original charge. That 77% of

youngsters observed in Diversion Committees successfully completed the

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

93

Terms, and 89% (eight out of nine) were not charged within four months, is we feel, another indication of program effectiveness.

Long Terni Effectiveness

Those individuals who were interviewed, and who offered an opinion

about the impact of the Diversion Program on long term recidivism,

generally felt positively. It is not possible, as well be discussed

in the next section, to provide substantive data on the question of

recidivism, however the opinions of those involved in the program,

should not, we feel, be disregarded.

Two out of the three Judges interviewed felt that the Diversion Program

had a substantial impact on long term recidivism, and one said specifically

that "there is substantially less recidivism among Diversion clients

than those who come before me in Court". The third Judge indicated that

the recidivism rates are the same for all juveniles, which falls in

line with the general theory that the "good kids will be good, and the

bad kids will be bad".

However, even this third Judge mentioned that statistically, it appeared

to him that very few Diversion clients show up again in Court; and for

those who do, it is difficult to separate out those youths who failed

Diversion and are back in Court because of failure to comply, and those

who completed Diversion, and are back in Court because of a new charge.

These data just do not exist.

Police officers interviewed indicated in general that they felt that

the impact of the Diversion Program had been a decrease in recidivism

rates. In the words of one police officer, "It is definitely cut down

on repeaters".

Of the 15 police officers who were interviewed in the rural settings,

eight indicated specifically that they felt there had been a decrease in

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

recidivism rates as a result of the introduction of the Diversion

Program. The others either had no opinion, or felt that the Diversion

Program had no different impact than did Court. This latter group

consisted of only two police officers. In the urban setting, two out

of the three police officers interviewed indicated that they felt the

Diversion Program had a positive impact on recidivism rates. The third

police officer was not able to comment, as he felt that without the

data to support his contentions, he would not be giving an accurate

representation of recidivism rates.

Of the other individuals who were interviewed in the connection with

this Diversion evaluation, the majority indicated they felt that the

program had cut down on repeat offenses. Those who did not indicate

this response, had, in general, the impression that there was not

enough data to support that kind of contention. As one person said,

"We just don't know". No one indicated that they felt that Diversion

had less of an impact on the first time young offender than Court.

5. The Question of Recidivism

The question of recidivism rates, is a very difficult area, in relation

to young offenders generally, and the Diversion Program in particular.

There are a number of ways in which recidivism could be measured, all

of which have attendant difficulties.

In this section, we outline first, some of these possible approaches

and explain why they are not feasible in this situation. Second, we

present the approach which we intend to take, to address this problem

area.

Contro1 Group Experiment

The most effective way of determining whether the Diversion Program

has reduced the extent to which young offenders are becoming involved

94

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

9_5

in the law, is through the control group experiment.

Such an exercise would involve assigning randomly, all first-time

young offenders, either to Diversion, or to Family Court for disposition.

If all young people were assigned randomly in this fashion, and then were

followed up at 6, 9, and 12 months, and then 2 years later, it would be

possible to determine, what kind of impact a Diversion Program had on

the extent to which young persons - were re-charged in comparison with

an appearance in Juvenile Court, for the first offense.

As might be imagined, it is not possible to carry out such a controlled

experiment on the Diversion Program, as it currently exists in the Four

Counties, for a number of reasons. The first reason is purely ethical:

it would be unfair, given the current perceptions of the Diversion Program,

to "deprive" the young people of the opportunity to experience the

"benefits" of Diversion, since it is available.

Second, while it might be possible, should these ethical considerations

be overcome, to carry out this kind of comparison in an urban setting,

where the population could be assumed to be fairly homogeneous, it

would certainly not be possible to carry out this kind of controlled

experiment in a rural setting. Unless it were possible to compare

clients from similar small towns, and match them in pairs according to

a set of distinguishing characteristics which might influence re-charge

rates, it would not be feasible to attempt to carry out such a controlled

experiment in a rural setting. The differences across small towns

might be large enough to affect the differences in dispositions from

the Juvenile Court and from the Diversion Program.

Comparison With Another Municipality

Another option which was considered, but was seen as not feasible, was

the possibility of matching up the Region of Waterloo with a municipality

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP •

96

in southwestern Ontario, which did not have a Diversion Program. The

extent to which juveniles who had been charged and sent to Court for

a first offense in the other municipality, were re-charged after a

fixed period of time, might have been compared with those who went

through.the Diversion Program in the Region of Waterloo. Again,

however, there are problems with this type of approach. Primary

amongst these is the difference in attitides and practices of the police forces in the two municipalities; followed by the differences in

population in the two municipalities.

It is accepted by many in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, that the Region

of Waterloo Police, Juvenile Department, because of its specialization

in the area of youth offenders, takes the attitude that youths should

be warned many times before they are actually charged. In Kitchener

and Waterloo, the attitude is that youths should be warned between 5 and 10 times, before they are actually charged. (This attitude, for

example, is very different from that noted in the rural police departments

in Grey and Bruce counties where we interviewed police officers. On

average, a charge is laid after the first warning, and in many cases

the maximum number of warnings is only two. In Owen Sound, for example,

where there is a very large shoplifting problem in the malls outside

the city, the OPP will lay a charge on the very first offense.)

As a result, we feel, it would not be possible to make comparisons

between the Region of Waterloo which has a very high ratio of warnings

to charges, and another municipality with a similar sized population,

which may have a very different ratio of warnings to charges. Likewise,

it would be important to take into account the extent to which police

discretion was exercised in the two police departments of the towns to

be compared. It would probably be quite difficult to find two police

departments in two municipalities who have similar views on the exercise

of police discretion, that the experimentor could be assu'red that they

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

1

9.7

were dealing with the same population of young offenders, in terms of

seriousness of the offense, or extent of being "hardened".

Pre- and Post-Diversion Comparisons

Another method of measuring the effectiveness of Diversion in terms

of recidivism, would be a before and after comparison between the

present rate at which juveniles who were sent to Diversion were being

re-charged, compared with the rate at which first offense juveniles

were being re-charged prior to the inception of the Diversion Program.

Such a comparison however, is not possible in the Region of Waterloo.

The Region of Waterloo Police does not keep statistics on juveniles

for more than five years. As the program began in 1977, there are no

data available on first time young offenders who were charged, prior

to the beginning of the program, and were sent to Court.

Such a pre- and post-Diversion Program comparison, is however, possible

to a limited degree for the two rural counties of Grey and Bruce.

These data are not yet available, and will be presented in our next

report.

Analysis ofAvailable Data

Given that these more rigorous approaches were impossible, we have at

least, attempted to determine re-charge rates on young offenders who

have been terminated in the Diversion Program in the four Diversion

Committees under study. These data, presented in Table 12, will at

least give an impression of the rate at which young people are re-

charged, after nine months following termination.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

98

TABLE 12

Recidivism Rates of Young Offenders Sent to Diversion in Four Committees:

Terminations Terminations From July 81 - Jan. 82 in Calendlr 1981

Grey Bruce Kitchener Cambridge

Number Young Offenders Terminated 19 9 84 93

Number with no further charges or contacts: 16 8 66 66

Per Cent Success Rate: 84% 89% 78% 71%

Number Cautioned (Not Charged): ? ? 9 10

Per Cent Cautioned: ? ? 11% 11%

Number - Re-Charged: to September, 1982 3 1 9 17

Per Cent Re-Charged: (Recidivism Rates) 16% 11% 11% 18%

A number of factors should be noted when examining this table. First, it

should be noted that in both Grey and Bruce counties, in the interests of

obtaining a reasonable follow-up term of nine months, we have not included

any young offenders who were terminated after January 1st, 1982. Since

the program only began in July, 1981, the impact of this, is that the

samply is fairly small. As is well known, small samples increase the

opportunity for error and so the reader should be cautious when examining

these results.

Also, in Grey and Bruce Counties, it was not possible to ôbtain information

on the numbers who had been cautioned, as almost all police departments

99.

in rural areas do not keep records on warnings of juveniles. Additionally,

a juvenile may be warned in one town, but this information might not be

passed onto the police department in the town where s/he was residing.

As a result, the police department in the youngster's home town may

think that the young person has not been charged or warned elsewhere,

whereas s/he may have a very long list of warnings and charges, in

different police departments, about which the home town police department

might not know.

Bearing in mind these cautions, then we should examine Table 12. Looking

first at the date from Kitchener and Cambridge, it can be seen that the

re-charge rate is slightly higher in Cambridge than it is in Kitchener.

This outcome might be attributed to the number of cautions typically

issued by the Juvenile department in the Region of Waterloo Police

Department, which may be somewhat different from those typically issued

by the police in Cambridge. In Kitchener-Waterloo, on average, three

cautions or warnings were issued prior to a charge, per young offender,

whereas in Cambridge, only on average, 2.3 cautions were issued prior to the laying of a charge, as calculated from one year follow-up data

provided by the respective Police Departments. On the basis of this then,

it could be seen that the numbers of charges laid in Cambridge would be

higher than those laid in Kitchener.

The other interesting factor of note is that the percent success rate --

that is the number of young offenders who were terminated, and had no

further charges or contacts -- appears to be slightly higher in Grey

and Bruce Counties, the rural areas(looking at the average re-charge rate for both counties together), than it is in Kitchener and

Cambridge, the urban areas. While on the one hand, this might be seen

as a distinction between the Diversion Program in an urban and rural

setting, it must be remembered that the number of cases with which we

are dealing in Grey and Bruce is very small, thus increasing the pos-

sibility of error.

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

100

While it might also be desirable to compare these date in Table 12 with,

for example, national data on recidivism rates for young offenders, it

is impossible, as such data, nationally, just do not exist. The extent

to which juveniles are charged in various parts of the country, varies

drastically with the regions, the discretions of the individual police

forces, the provincial regulations and legislation, and other such

factors. As a result, it is not possible to compare these re-charge

rates with an average national re-charge rate for juveniles.

It is our intention, in the next report, to provide more comprehensive

data on this issue of recidivism, which might allow more conclusions

to be drawn on the effectiveness of the Diversion Program, as measured

by recidivism rates. One method of accomplishing this, is to take a

case-study approach.

Case Study Approach

Given that our objective was to attempt to measure recidivism to some

extent, we have elected to do a case study approach to recidivism,

looking closely at those individuals who we interviewed following

the observation of their Diversion Committee hearings, in the four

committees under study.

It was our intention to compare these data with some other data obtained

from another evaluation being carried out by the Federal Solicitor

General in the Region of Waterloo. However, as the results of this study --

comparing re-charge rates for youths who were sent to the Attendance

Centre (a pre-charge program run by the John Howard Society), those

who were sent to the Waterloo Region Diversion Program, those who were

cautioned, and those young people who were charged -- have yet to be

released, we are unable to make the comparison as planned.

It is therefore our intention to carry out a further follow-up in

February, to see whether those young people who were interviewed in the

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

Diversion Committee meetings in August and September, have again be

re-charged. While this is a very small sample, it is nevertheless an

indicator to some extent of the rate at which young people are success-

fully completing the Diversion Program, and not being re-charged or

cautioned again.

Summary

We have presented in this section, a discussion of the issue of

recidivism among young offenders. We have looked in a nine month

follow-up, at the re-charge rates of those young offenders who have

been sent to Diversion.

It is our intention, in our next report, to present more comprehensive

data on recidivism information for Diversion young offenders. At that

time, it will be possible to show a one-year follow-up period.

101

THE SUTCLIFFE GROUP

z

OCT 1995

01-1- 1CA 0F3

I