|
1. Introduction: An Overview of Calgary Community ConferencingaCalgary Community Conferencing (CCC) is a collaboration among six organizations representing the legal and education systems and community-based nonprofit agencies. The following four organizations each second an employee to the program: Youth Probation/City of Calgary, Calgary Board of Education, Mennonite Central Committee, and Calgary John Howard Society. Calgary Police Service and Calgary Family Services provide consultation and services to the program and its participants. CCC also receives financial support from Alberta Justice, the Calgary Community Lottery Board, the Calgary Foundation, and the federal Department of Justice. An Advisory Board composed of management level representatives from each of the six partners meets monthly and assists CCC with the development of funding proposals and with navigating systemic and organizational issues. A schematic of the organizational location of CCC is presented below.
In this schematic, circles represent agencies providing seconded employees while rectangles represent agencies whose contribution is through consultation and provision of services. It is important to note that CCC does not exist as an independent agency. CCC began in early 1998 as a project within the municipally run Youth Probation Services. Since that time, the program has evolved to include young people whose wrongdoing has not been defined as 'criminal.' While the focus remains on youth, involvement with the formal justice system is not necessary. The program also works with young people who have wronged within the school system and, occasionally, takes general community referrals. Types of wrongdoings over which Conferences have been held span a wide range, but can be generally categorized as interpersonal violence (e.g., assault, assault with a weapon, armed robbery), property related (e.g., break and enter, theft, fraud), or 'other' (mischief, trespassing). CCC's criteria for accepting referrals are that the person who wronged is facing serious court or school consequences and accepts responsibility for the wrongdoing. For court referred youth, this typically means that a guilty plea has been entered and the young person is likely facing a custodial sentence. For school referred youth, suspension is usually under consideration and the individual making the referral establishes the young person's willingness to assume responsibility for the wrongdoing. Conferencing activities proceed from the referral stage depending on the voluntary participation of both the youth and the individual(s) harmed. Program Goals and Processes The long-term goals of CCC include lower re-offense rates among young people who participated in Conferencing compared to those who did not, less use of extreme sanctioning measures (i.e., incarceration of court referred youth and suspension or expulsion of school referred youth) among Conferenced than non-Conferenced youth, and an enhanced sense of connection to the justice process among all participants in Conferencing. The initial and intermediate outcomes intended to lead to the achievement of these long-term objectives involve changes in all Conference participants and can be classified into four major types: the restoration of relationships to social equality, the acceptance of responsibility and accountability by the young person who wronged, a sense of closure regarding the incident among individuals affected by the wrongdoing, and a sense of involvement in the justice process among all Conference participants. CCC facilitators do not follow a prescribed 'script' to accomplish the intended outcomes of the program; in fact, there is considerable variance in what occurs across Conferences as the facilitators attempt to be flexible and respond to the needs of the particular individuals involved. However, the activities of CCC staff can be loosely organized into three major stages, each associated with particular intended initial and intermediate outcomes: Pre-Conference, Conference, and Post-Conference. Pre-Conference activities and outcomes. The intended participant outcomes of the Pre-Conference stage include developing trust in the facilitator and an understanding of the purposes and voluntary and safe nature of the Conferencing process. To accomplish these goals, the facilitator meets with each Conference participant. These meetings occur at the participant's home or over a meal, which contributes to the development of familiarity and ease with the facilitator. The meetings typically take place in the evenings or on weekends and last approximately three hours. Depending on the situation and needs of the participants, several home visits and phone calls may precede the Conference. With the young person who wronged, Pre-Conference visits involve ensuring that his or her reasons for wanting to meet with the person(s) who experienced harm fit with the purposes of Community Conferencing. The facilitator also works to establish a relationship with the young person. The development of this relationship with the facilitator is necessary for the young person to have confidence that the Conference will be a safe and respectful place for him or her to tell his 'truth' about the incident. Pre-Conference preparation with the person(s) harmed also focuses on describing the Conference process and developing a trusting relationship with the facilitator and an understanding that Conferencing will be a safe and respectful process. These meetings allow the person(s) harmed to discuss their feelings about and since the incident. For many, the Pre-Conference meeting with a facilitator is similar to a critical incident stress debriefing, as persons harmed have rarely had anyone from the justice system inquire about the impact of the event. During Pre-Conference meetings with the young person who harmed and the person(s) who experienced harm, each is asked about supporters they would like to have at the Conference. The presence of supporters helps avoid the idea that only 'victims' and 'offenders' are harmed by a wrongful incident. Individuals with a relationship to the young person and the person who experienced the wrong may include parents, grandparents, employers or friends. Supporters also meet with the facilitator prior to the conference to clarify its purpose and their role. Conference activities and outcomes. The encounter component of Conferencing focuses on the goal of restoring social equality among the participants. It is hoped that the Pre-Conference work has laid the groundwork for a situation in which all participants feel supported by the facilitator and the others they have asked to accompany them and so are able to safely and truthfully voice their perspectives. Intended outcomes toward the goal of restoring social equality include, for the young person, developing an understanding of the impact of his or her actions and empathy for the person(s) harmed. He or she is also intended to experience remorse for the wrongdoing and to have an increased awareness of support from family and/or other participants. It is hoped that the person(s) harmed will experience acknowledgement of the impact of the incident. Relationships among the involved participants are intended to change from incident based to more complex and multidimensional. During the Conference, facilitators use structure to ensure the safety of all participants and enhance the likelihood of each hearing the others. The young person(s) and his or her supporters arrive at the Conference location first. They are asked to wait in a room separate from the area in which the Conference will take place until the person(s) who experienced harm and his or her supporters arrive and are seated in the Conference area. This gives the victims a chance to claim the space and to feel comfortable before the young person and his or her supporters enter. Once all participants are present, the facilitator summarizes the Conference process. Participants are asked to take breaks at the same time and to give each other uninterrupted opportunity to speak. Paper is provided so participants can note comments or questions that come up while others are telling their stories. Generally, the young person is asked to speak first. With the help of clarifying questions from the facilitator, the young person details his or her actions, thoughts, and feelings surrounding the harmful event. The person(s) who experienced harm most directly is invited to speak next. This person explains what happened from his or her perspective and the thoughts and feelings experienced as a result of the event. Again, the facilitator uses questions as necessary to assist this process. Supporters of the young person and the person(s) harmed then describe the event and its impact from their perspectives. The initial story telling ends with participants having a chance to ask questions of one another. The story telling component of the Conference typically lasts over two hours and is often emotionally charged, allowing participants opportunities to develop understanding of the others' experiences. At the conclusion of the story telling component, participants take a break. When the group reconvenes and if no additional questions have arisen, the young person and his or her supporters are asked to move to a separate room. Based on what he or she has heard in the Conference and with assistance of the supporters, the young person develops a restoration proposal. These proposals are unique and creative, typically including both monetary (e.g., financial compensation, replacement of stolen items) and symbolic (e.g., personal service, community service, apology letters, updates on personal progress) aspects. Once the proposal is developed, the young person describes what he or she would like to do to redress the harm to the full group. The person(s) harmed and supporters respond to the proposal, suggesting modifications or additions. Written finalization of the agreement signals the concluding stage of the Conference. Participants are asked to reflect on what they have experienced over the course of the Conference. The facilitator encourages this reflection in relation to the people they now know rather than specifically on the wrongdoing that brought them together. Participants are asked a variation on the following question: "What does it tell you about [the young person, their family, or the person harmed] that they chose to be here today?" Supporters of the young person often express pride and love for the young person and heartfelt appreciation to the people harmed for helping make this a meaningful experience. The people harmed typically voice admiration and compassion for the young person and his or her family. They also express gratitude for the answers received about the wrongdoing and their feelings of increased safety in their community. Post-Conference Activities and Outcomes. The intended outcomes of the Post-Conference stage build on earlier stages to enhance the likelihood that relationships have been restored, that participants continue to feel involved in the justice process, and that they experience a sense of closure regarding the event that brought them together. Facilitator activities include completing a comprehensive summary describing what occurred at the Conference and what agreements were made to redress the harm. This summary is received by all Conference participants and by the individuals within the justice or educational system involved, that is, the judge, crown prosecutor and defense counsel and school administrators. Facilitators also ensure that monitoring of the restoration agreement is in place. It is important to note that relevant Conference participants (e.g., parents, guidance counselor, probation officer) oversee the young person's completion of the restoration agreement. This task is not the responsibility of the CCC facilitators. If the young person who wronged is returning to court for disposition, the facilitator typically accompanies him or her and, if asked, provides a verbal report on the conference to the judge. The person(s) who experienced harm frequently also chooses to be in court during the young person's disposition hearing. If present, this person is typically asked by the judge about the Conferencing experience and about his or her perceptions of the young person. Program Evaluation Since July 1999, CCC has been implementing a program evaluation process. This process began with the development of a program structure and logic model through which the initial, intermediate, and long term intended outcomes described above were specified. Three evaluative strategies were then developed, with evaluation questions and associated methods as follows:
The following report focuses on the descriptive component of the program evaluation and details program activities and outputs over the first two and one half years of CCC's operation from early January 1998 to the end of July, 2000. The report concentrates on Conferences held with school and court referred young people and distinguishes between court and school Conferences when their differences or contrasts are noteworthy.b
Calgary Community Conferencing facilitated 65 Conferences between early January 1998 and the end of July 2000. As portrayed in Chart 2.a., just under one-third (19 or 29.2%) were school and just over two-thirds (46 or 70.8%) were court Conferences. As can be noted from Chart 2.a., Conferences for court referred youth occurred over the entire two and one half years of the reporting period, while Conferences involving school referred youth occurred for only just over one year of the same period. The first school Conference was held in May 1999, which was prior to the official partnership between Calgary Community Conferencing and the Calgary Board of Education (C.B.E). This first Conference was a pilot for the C.B.E. The first Conference held during the year of C.B.E. funding was in November 1999. The 65 Conferences held between January 1998 and July 2000 involved 30 different types of incidents and, in total, 175 counts on these incidents. Approximately three-quarters of the Conferences (50 or 76.9%) involved one type of incident. Among the 15 Conferences that involved more than one type of incident, 12 involved two kinds of incidents, two involved three types of incidents and one involved five types of incidents. The Conference regarding five different kinds of incidents involved one young person and four victims, with multiple property related (i.e., break and enter, break and enter with intent, theft under $5,000, possession of stolen property, possession of break and enter tools) incidents. The 30 types of incidents can be sorted into three broad categories: property related, interpersonal violence, and other. Property related incidents accounted for just over half (96 or 54.9%) of the 175 incidents Conferenced. Interpersonal conflict accounted for approximately another third (66 or 37.7%), with the balance of the incidents (13 or 7.4%) categorized as 'other'. Details regarding each category of incident are provided below.
2.1 Property Related Incidents Property related incidents can be broadly grouped into three major sub-categories: stealing, fraud, and auto related. Chart 2.b. presents a breakdown of the property related category by incident type and incident sub-category.
As mentioned previously, over half of the 175 incidents Conferenced between January 1998 and July 2000 were property related (96 or 54.9%). Almost all of these (90 or 93.8%) involved young people referred to Conferencing from the court. The property related incidents that were school referred involved two students Conferenced for three counts each of tire slashing. Details on each of the three sub-categories of property related incidents are provided below.
2.1.1 Stealing Related Incidents Within the stealing related sub-category, there were 80 incidents accounting for 83.3% of the 96 property related incidents and 45.7% of all incidents Conferenced. Chart 2.c. indicates the percentage of the total stealing related sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
As indicated in Chart 2.c., break and enters were the most common incident in the stealing related sub-category, accounting for over one third of these incidents. Taken as a group (i.e., summing break and enter, break and enter with intent, etc.), there were a total of 54 break and enter type offenses, accounting for over two-thirds (67.5%) of the stealing related incidents and over one-half (56.3%) of the total property related incidents. All 80 stealing related incidents Conferenced involved court referred young people.
2.1.2. Fraud Related Incidents Within the fraud related sub-category of property offenses, there were six incidents accounting for 6.3% of the 96 incidents in the property related category and 3.4% of all incidents Conferenced. Chart 2.d. indicates the percentage of the total fraud related sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
Among fraud related incidents, possession or use of a stolen credit card accounted for two-thirds (66.7%) of the incidents. Uttering a forged document and fraud itself each accounted for 16.7% of the incidents. All six incidents in the fraud sub-category of the property related category involved court referred young people.
2.1.3 Auto Related Incidents Within the automobile related sub-category of property offenses, there were 10 incidents accounting for 10.4% of the 96 incidents in the property related category and 5.7% of all incidents Conferenced. Chart 2.e. indicates the percentage of the total automobile sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
Among the automobile related sub-category of property incidents, tire slashing was the most frequently occurring incident type, accounting for 60% of the incidents. These school referred incidents involved two young people Conferenced at the same time for three incidents each of slashing tires in a school parking lot.
2.2 Interpersonal Conflict Incidents Interpersonal conflict incidents can be broadly grouped into two major sub-categories: assault related and fighting related. Chart 2.f. presents a breakdown of the interpersonal conflict incidents by incident type and incident sub-category.
Of the total incidents Conferenced (175), 66 (37.7%) involved some type of interpersonal conflict. Most of these incidents were school referred (55 or 83.3%). Details on each of the two sub-categories of interpersonal conflict incidents are provided below.
2.2.1 Assault Related Incidents Within the assault related sub-category, there were 35 incidents accounting for 53.0% of the 66 interpersonal conflict incidents and 20.0% of all incidents Conferenced. Chart 2.g. indicates the percentage of the total assault related sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
Within the assault related sub-category of the interpersonal conflict category, the 24 assaults accounted for the majority (68.6%) of incidents. Taken as a group (i.e., summing assault, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm), there were a total of 27 assault offenses, accounting for 81.9% of the incidents in the assault sub-category and 40.9% of incidents within the interpersonal conflict category. Just over two-thirds of the incidents in the assault category were school referred (24 or 68.6%).
2.2.2 Fighting Related Incidents Within the fighting sub-category of interpersonal conflict incidents, there were 31 incidents, accounting for 47.0% of the 66 interpersonal conflict situations and 17.7% of all incidents Conferenced. Chart 2.h. indicates the percentage of the total fighting sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
Incidents within the fighting sub-category of the interpersonal conflict category were fairly evenly distributed across the three types, with each accounting for close to one-third of the total. All of the incidents classified as fighting involved school referred young people. Furthermore, the 12 group related conflict incidents were within one Conference involving 12 young people at one high school.
2.3 'Other' Incidents Three types of incidents over which Conferences were held could be classified as neither property nor assault related. Chart 2.i. indicates the percentage of the total 'other' sub-category accounted for by each incident type.
The majority (10 or 76.9%) of non-property and non-assault incidents over which Conferences were held involved mischief. Incidents involving the young person being unlawfully disguised or trespassing accounted for two (15.4%) and one (7.7%) of the total respectively. All 'other' incidents involved court referred young people.
a This Introduction was written with assistance from Doug Borch, CCC staff member. b During the reporting period, CCC completed one Conference with individuals referred from the general community. This Conference was requested by a young woman who had been sexually molested by a family friend when she was a child. The Conference included the man responsible for the molestation, the young woman, and two CCC facilitators. Given its atypical nature, data regarding this Conference are not integrated into this report. c Percent totals may not add exactly to 100 throughout the report due to rounding error.
|
