5. Time Between Incident, Referral, and Conference

Charts 5.a., 5.b., and 5.c. display, respectively, the number of days between incident and referral, referral and Conference, and incident and Conference. Also included with each chart are the average number of intervening days in each category for school and court Conferences.

As indicated by Chart 5.a., the number of days between incident and referral was quite different for court and school Conferences. Most school incidents were referred to Calgary Community Conferencing before four weeks had passed (16 or 84.2% of all school Conferences) and all had been referred by eight weeks. In contrast only about one-quarter of the court incidents were referred to Conferencing within 8 weeks (13 or 28.3%). Almost two-thirds of the court referrals were made between five and 24 weeks from the incident (30 or 65.2%). About one-third of the court referrals were made between 25 and 56 weeks following the incident (17 or 37.0%). On average, schools made referrals to Conferencing 16 days (2.3 weeks) after the incident and the court made referrals 146 days (20.8 weeks) after the incident.

As indicated in Chart 5.b., time elapsed between referral and Conference tended to be somewhat shorter for school than court referred incidents. All 19 of the school referred incidents were Conferenced before eight weeks had passed since the incident. About one-half of the court referred incidents were Conferenced within eight weeks (24 or 52.2%). By 12 weeks after referral, 82.6% (38) of court referred incidents had been Conferenced and by 16 weeks, 95.6% (44) of these incidents had been Conferenced. Court Conferences tend to take more time to arrange because, compared to school Conferences, they typically involve increased difficulty reaching the young people, victim(s) and supporters involved.

With respect to time elapsed between incident and Conference, 84.2% (16) of the Conferences regarding school referred incidents were held within eight weeks of the incident. Time between incident and Conference tended to be longer for court referred incidents: just over one-quarter (12 or 26.1%) were Conferenced within 16 weeks of the incident. Over half of the court referred incidents were Conferenced between 17 and 48 weeks post incident (26 or 56.5%). Hearings regarding these incidents often do not reach the court for some time after the incident and arranging attendance at the Conference by young people, victim(s) and supporters can take considerable time.

6. Conference Restoration Agreements

The Community Conference process typically includes the development, by the young person in collaboration with his or her supporters, of an agreement specifying one or more activities to be completed in order to redress the harm caused to the victim(s). In Conferences that involved mutual harm, all young people were asked to develop separate restoration agreements. The items on restoration agreements were sorted into nine broad categories. Chart 6.a. details the restoration agreement items included in each category.

As evidenced by Chart 6.a., there is enormous variety in the items included on restoration agreements. Chart 6.b. indicates the number (and percent) of items in each category included in the restoration agreements negotiated in the 65 Conferences.

Across the 65 Conferences, the 104 young people who negotiated restoration agreements specified a total of 397 items they would complete in an effort to redress the harm caused. On average, restoration agreements included about three items. Overall, the item included most frequently on restoration agreements was an apology, which accounted for about one-third of all items on agreements (128 or 32.2%). The item occurring next frequently on restoration agreements was activities bringing together the young person(s) and the victim(s), accounting for 14.6% (58) of all items. Doing a positive activity, giving a gift or compensation to the victim, and performing personal or community service hours each accounted for over 10% of the 397 total items.

Chart 6.c. presents a graphic of the items included on restoration agreements across the 9 major categories.

There was some similarity in the relative frequency of service hours, apologies, and educational activities on court and school restoration agreements. With respect to the other six categories of restoration agreement items, there were some notable differences between court and school restoration agreements. Restoration agreements negotiated in court Conferences were more likely than those negotiated in school Conferences to include compensation or a gift for the victim. This may reflect the fact that a greater percentage of court Conferences involved property related incidents in which possessions of victims were damaged or taken. Restoration agreements for court Conferences were also more likely to specify that the young person would provide the victim(s) with updates regarding his or her progress. This could potentially be explained by the typical distance between young person and victim(s) in court versus school Conferences. Because of the context, the young person is likely to have naturally occurring regular contact with the victim(s) after school related incidents. If a victim in court referred incidents wished updates on the young person's progress, these would likely need to be pre-arranged.

Compared with those negotiated during court Conferences, restoration agreements negotiated during school Conferences were more likely to include an activity involving the young person and the victim(s). This may be due to the increased likelihood of the need for an ongoing relationship between the young person and victim(s) in the school context. School Conference restoration agreements were also more likely than court Conference agreements to include items relating to reducing a negative activity or doing a positive activity.

7. System Imposed Consequences for Young People

7.1 System Imposed Consequences for Court Referred Youth

Dispositions (or sentences) for the 51 court referred young people who participated in Community Conferences are somewhat difficult to describe given the impossibility of thoroughly capturing the context of each disposition. Several factors may make dispositions at least moderately incomparable. These include, for example, variance among young persons' prior records and whether or not young people had sufficient time before the disposition hearing to fulfill the restoration agreements negotiated at the Conference. Furthermore, it is sometimes unclear if all or only some of the incidents for which the young person was charged were actually a fundamental part of the Conference, though the court disposition is generally covers all of the charges. These contextual issues should be kept in mind when considering court dispositions associated with young people who participated in Conferencing.

In an attempt to present information regarding court dispositions for Conferenced young people in the most straightforward and comparable way, the information has been broken down into four sub-sections: dispositions for young people charged with one count for one incident, dispositions for young people charged with two counts (for one or two incident types), dispositions for young people charged with three counts (for one, two, or three incident types), and dispositions for young people charged with four or more counts (for one to five incident types). The most detail is provided regarding court dispositions for young people Conferenced for one incident. Fewer details are provided on court dispositions as the number of counts increases as the young peoples' situations become increasingly less comparable.

7.1.1. Dispositions for Young People Conferenced for One Count

Twenty-nine of the court referred young people participated in Conferencing regarding a single count on a single incident type. Information regarding the incidents for which these young people were Conferenced is presented in Chart 7.a.

Among the 29 young people who participated in Conferencing regarding a single incident, robbery was the most common. Young people responsible for a robbery accounted for almost one-quarter (7 or 24.1%) of all youths Conferenced regarding a single incident. Four young people (13.8%) were Conferenced for a single break and enter with intent and four (13.8%) were Conferenced for a single assault. Three young people (10.3%) participated in Conferences regarding their responsibility for a break and enter with theft and three (10.3%) participating regarding a mischief incident. One young person (3.4%) participated in Conferencing regarding a single count of each of the following incident types: theft over $5,000, possession of stolen property, indecent phone call, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and criminal negligence.

Disposition information regarding the 29 young people who were Conferenced for one count of one incident is presented in Chart 7.b.

As can be seen from Chart 7.b., the most common disposition imposed by the court on young people Conferenced for a single incident was probation, with 24 of the 29 young people (82.8%) given a probation order. There was considerable variance in the length of probation term ordered for these youth, though most (15 or 62.5%) received a one year term. Among young people who did not receive a one year probation term, one (4.2%) received two months, four (16.7%) received six months, one (4.2%) received eight months, and three (12.5%) received nine months.

The second most common court disposition imposed on young people Conferenced for a single incident was community service, with 11 of the 29 young people (37.9%) ordered to complete between 20 and 100 hours. Among these 11 young people, four (36.4%) were ordered to complete 100 hours, two (18.2%) were ordered to complete 60 hours, and two (18.2%) were ordered to complete 50 hours. Forty, 35 and 20 hours were each assigned to one young person (9.1%). Of the 11 orders for community service, 7 (63.6%) mirrored amounts of community service hours negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement and one additional order was somewhat longer than the community service hours negotiated in the restoration agreement. Three of the 11 young people (27.3%) were court ordered to complete community service hours when none had been negotiated in their Conference restoration agreement.

A compensation order was imposed on six of the 29 young people (20.7%) Conferenced for a single incident. The compensation orders were all of different amounts as follows: $250, $440, $610, $849, $950, $6,400. Of these, half (3 or 50.0%) mirrored amounts of compensation negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement. The young person ordered to pay $6,400 in compensation had received his disposition prior to participating in Conferencing, which is unusual. The referral of this young person to Conferencing occurred through his probation officer.

Six of the young people (20.7%) who participated in Conferencing regarding a single incident received a conditional discharge from the court and one (3.4%) received an absolute discharge. One young person (3.4%) was ordered to complete 20 personal service hours; this order reflected what the young person had negotiated as part of the Conference restoration agreement. One young person (3.4%) was ordered to complete 14 days of open custody and another young person (3.4%) was ordered to complete 90 days of closed custody. None of the 29 young people was diverted from court to Alternative Measures nor ordered to pay a fine. Finally, two of the young people received 'other' conditions as part of their dispositions. Both 'other' conditions were involved attending counselling, one of which was a reflection of the young person's Conference restoration agreement.

Incidents over which the 29 single incident court referred young people were Conferenced can be sorted into three broad categories: property related (18), interpersonal conflict (8), and other (3). In order to more thoroughly describe court imposed consequences related to each type of incident, disposition information is presented within each category. Disposition information for specific property related incidents is presented in Chart 7.c.

Among the 18 young people whose single Conferenced offense can be categorized as property related, robbery was the most common and accounted for over one-third of these incidents (seven or 38.9%). Court dispositions for robbery were of three types: probation (received by six or 85.7% of the seven young people), community service (received by six or 85.7% of the seven young people), and conditional discharges (received by one or 14.3% of the seven young people). All of the six orders for probation terms were for one year. Among the six young people who received court ordered community service, two received 100 hours, two received 60 hours, one received 50 hours, and one received 35 hours. Six of these seven orders for community service (85.7%) reflected what the young person had negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement and the seventh (for 60 hours) was 20 hours more than had been negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement.

Break and enter with intent was the second most common incident type within the property related category and accounted for four of the 29 young people (13.8%) Conferenced regarding one incident. Young people who participated in Conferencing regarding a single break and enter with intent incident were given court dispositions requiring personal service (1 or 25.0%), closed custody (1 or 25.0%), probation (3 or 75%), compensation (1 or 25%), absolute discharge (2 or 50.0%), or an 'other' item (1 or 25.0%, for counselling). Probation terms were all for one year. The one young person whose disposition included personal service was required to do 20 hours, which reflected what had been negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement. The one young person ordered to pay compensation was required to pay $6,400 and, as noted earlier, this disposition was actually made prior to the Conference. The young person whose disposition included counselling had previously agreed to this in the Conference restoration agreement.

Three of the 18 (16.7%) young people Conferenced for a single incident in the property related category were responsible for break and enter with theft incidents. The dispositions for these young people included community service (1 or 33.3%), probation (2 or 66.7%), compensation (1 or 33.3%), and conditional discharge (1 or 33%). The young person who received court ordered community service was required to complete 30 hours, which reflected the Conference restoration agreement. The young person who was ordered to pay compensation was asked to pay $250, the same amount this young person had agreed to in the Conference restoration agreement.

Two of the 18 young people (11.1%) Conferenced for a single property related incident were responsible for a break and enter. These young people received community service (1 or 50.0%) and probation (2 or 100%). The young person whose court disposition included community service was ordered to complete 100 hours, which had not been part of the restoration agreement. Both of these young people were court ordered to complete one year of probation.

One of the 18 young people (5.6%) responsible for an incident within the property related category was Conferenced regarding possession of a stolen property. This young person's court disposition included community service (100 hours, which had been included in the restoration agreement), probation (one year), and compensation ($610, which had been included in the restoration agreement).

Finally, one of the 18 young people (5.6%) responsible for an incident within the property related category was Conferenced regarding theft over $5,000. This young person's court disposition included probation (6 months) and a conditional discharge.

Chart 7.d. presents disposition information for young people who participated in a Conference regarding one interpersonal conflict incident.

Fifty percent (4) of the eight young people Conferenced for a single incident categorized as interpersonal conflict were responsible for assaults. Court dispositions for these young people included community service (1 or 25.0%), probation (3 or 75.0%), and conditional discharge (1 or 25.0%). The young person given community service was ordered to complete 50 hours, which had not been part of the negotiated Conference restoration agreement. Probation terms were for one year (two young people) or six months (one young person).

The four other young people responsible for single interpersonal conflict incidents were each Conferenced regarding a different type of incident. One young person was responsible for an indecent phone call, for which the court disposition included community service (40 hours, not included in the restoration agreement) and probation (2 months). The young person responsible for assault with a weapon received six months probation as a court disposition. The young person responsible for uttering threats received six months probation and a conditional discharge. Finally, the young person responsible for criminal negligence causing bodily harm received 14 days open custody, one year probation, and an order for counselling (not specified in the restoration agreement).

Three young people were responsible for single incidents that could not be categorized as property related or interpersonal conflict, all involving mischief. Disposition information regarding the three young people Conferenced for one mischief incident each is presented in Chart 7.e.

As can be seen from Chart 7.e., court dispositions for two of the three young people responsible for mischief included probation. The probation terms were for 9 months each. One young person received a conditional discharge. All three were court ordered to pay compensation. Two of these compensation orders (for $440 and $950) reflected what had been negotiated in the Conference restoration agreement, while the third ($849) had not been part of the restoration agreement.

7.1.2. Dispositions for Young People Conferenced for Two Counts

Five young people were Conferenced regarding two incidents. As indicated in Chart 7.f., one of these young people was responsible for two counts of one type of incident (possession of an imitation weapon dangerous to the public good), while the others were responsible for one count each of two different incidents.

Chart 7.g. presents disposition information for young people who participated in Conferencing regarding 2 incidents.

As can be seen from Chart 7.g., the most common court imposed consequence for young people Conferenced for two incidents was probation, with four of the five young people receiving this consequence. Two young people (50%) received 18 month probation terms. Of these young people, one was responsible for a robbery and unlawful disguise, while the other was responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and possession of stolen property. One young person (25%), responsible for break and enter with intent and possession/use of a stolen credit card, received 15 months probation. The fourth young person (25%) was responsible for assault and mischief and received eight months probation.

Two young people Conferenced for two incidents each were given disposition orders categorized as 'other.' The young person responsible for robbery and unlawful disguise was given a firearm prohibition, which was not negotiated in the restoration agreement. The young person responsible for break and enter with intent and possession/use of a stolen credit card received a court order for counselling, which had not been specified in the restoration agreement.

One young person responsible for two incidents received each of the following dispositions: charges withdrawn, community service, closed custody, and absolute discharge. The young person given community service was responsible for assault and mischief and was required to 30 hours, which reflected what was negotiated in the restoration agreement. The young person responsible for robbery and wearing a disguise was given 30 days closed custody. The young person given an absolute discharge was Conferenced regarding two counts of possession of an imitation weapon dangerous to the public good.

7.1.3. Dispositions for Young People Conferenced for Three Counts

Chart 7.h. presents information regarding the ten young people responsible for three counts.

As can be noted from Chart 7.h., three young people were Conferenced for three counts of one type of incident: break and enter, break and enter with theft, and possession of stolen property. Six young people were responsible for two types of incident, with one count on one type and two types on the other. Two of these involved break and enter and theft under $5,000. The other four involved the following combinations: break and enter with intent and theft under $5,000, possession of stolen property and possession/use of a stolen credit card, possession of stolen property and uttering a forged document, and possession/use of a stolen credit card and fraud. Finally, one young person was responsible for one count of three types of incidents: robbery, possession of a weapon, and unlawful disguise.

Chart 7.i. indicates the court dispositions for young people responsible for three counts.

As indicated in Chart 7.i., the most common court imposed consequence among young people responsible for three incidents was probation, received by eight of the ten youths (80.0%). The terms of probation ranged from six to 18 months, with two young people receiving the minimum and one receiving the maximum. Four young people received terms of one year and one received a term of 16 months.

The second most common court disposition given to young people responsible for three incidents was community service, received by four of the ten youths (40%). The community service orders were for 20, 40, 67 and 100 hours, none of which reflected items in negotiated Conference restoration agreements. One of the young people received 30 hours of personal service, which did not reflect the restoration agreement.

Three young people were court ordered to pay compensation. The amounts were as follows: $80, $125, and $1,700. Again, none of these reflected compensation amounts negotiated in Conference restoration agreements. Two of the young people responsible for three incidents were given absolute discharges. Finally, one young person was given an order to attend counselling as part of the court disposition. Counselling had not been part of this young person's Conference restoration agreement.

7.1.4. Dispositions for Young People Conferenced for More than Three Counts

Chart 7.j. provides an overview of the incidents and counts for the seven young people responsible for more than 3 counts.

As can be seen from Chart 7.j., the total counts for young people responsible for more than three counts ranged from six to nine. Three of the young people were responsible for multiple counts of one type of incident, two for break and enter (one for nine and the other for six counts) and one for possession of a stolen vehicle (eight counts). Two young people were responsible for multiple counts on two incidents, one for break and enter (five counts) and break and enter with intent (three counts) and the other for break and enter with theft (six counts) and auto theft (one count). One young person was responsible for multiple counts across three incident types: theft under $5,000 (one count), mischief (five counts) and possession of stolen property (two counts). Finally, one person was responsible for seven counts across five different incident types: break and enter with theft (three counts), break and enter with intent (one count), theft under $5,000 (one count), possession of stolen property (one count) and possession of break and enter tools (one count).

Chart 7.k. presents disposition information regarding the seven young people responsible for more than three counts each.

As can be seen from Chart 7.k., the most common court imposed disposition for these young people was probation, which all seven young people received. The shortest probation term was for six months (YP 7). Four young people received probation terms of one year each (YP 2, YP 4, YP 6, YP 1) and two young people received probation terms of 18 months (YP 5, YP 3).

Among the seven young people responsible for more than three counts, two received community service, two received personal service, and one received an 'other' disposition item. One of the young people (YP 1) who received community service was court ordered to 100 hours which did not reflect an item in the negotiated restoration agreement. The other young person (YP 2) was ordered to complete 50 hours, which did reflect the restoration agreement. The two young people (YP 1 and YP 2) court ordered to complete personal service both had negotiated the same number of hours (80 and 50, respectively) in the Conference restoration agreement. The 'other' disposition item received by one young person (YP 7) was an order for counselling, which had not been specified in the restoration agreement.

7.1.5. Relationships between Restoration Agreements and Court Dispositions

As noted in the preceding paragraphs, restoration agreement items negotiated among Conference participants sometimes reflected items court ordered in the young person's disposition. Not all negotiated restoration agreement items can be reflected in a court disposition, including, for example, written letters of apology, taking the victim(s) out for a meal, or spending quality time with family members. Conversely, not all possible court ordered consequences could be part of a restoration agreement, including, for example, custody and probation. However, there are some items that may be negotiated in a restoration agreement that could then be reflected in the young person's court disposition. These include community service, personal service, compensation, and counselling.

Ten of the 16 young people (62.5%) who had community service hours as part of negotiated restoration agreements were also court ordered to complete community service. Dispositions required two of the remaining 35 court referred young people (5.7%) to complete community service when none had been specified on the restoration agreement. Among the 10 young people whose restoration agreement and disposition both included community service, there was a strong correlation (r = .98) in the number of hours specified.

Three of the 17 young people (17.6%) who had personal service hours as part of negotiated restoration agreements were also court ordered to complete personal service. One of the remaining 34 court referred young people (2.9%) was court ordered to complete personal service when none had been specified on the restoration agreement. Among the young people whose restoration agreement and court disposition both included personal service, there was perfect agreement on the number of hours specified (r = 1.0).

Regarding compensation, four of the 22 young people (18.2%) who had negotiated some amount of compensation on the restoration agreement were also court ordered to pay compensation. Five of the 29 remaining young people (17.2%) were court ordered to pay compensation when none had been included in the restoration agreement. Among the young people with compensation on both restoration agreement and Disposition, there was strong agreement on the amount of money specified (r = .99).

Finally, six young people included attending counselling as part of the negotiated restoration agreement. Five young people received a court order mandating counselling as part of the disposition. Only one of the six young people (16.7%) who had counselling as a restoration agreement item also had counselling as a court disposition. Court dispositions mandated counselling for four of 45 young people (8.9%) who did not negotiate counselling on the restoration agreement.

7.2. System Imposed Consequences for School Referred Youth

Four charts are presented regarding consequences for young people who participated in school Conferences. Charts 7.l and 7.m. portray, respectively, whether or not young people received school consequences for the incident for which they were responsible and the types of consequences they received by young people over the reporting period. Chart 7.n. indicates, for the various types of incidents Conferenced, the number associated with school consequences. Finally, Chart 7.o. presents the types of school consequence associated with each incident.

As indicated in Chart 7.l., consequences were imposed by schools on approximately one-half of the students who participated in a school Conference.

The most common consequence (as indicated in Chart 7.m.) was five day suspensions, accounting for almost one-third of all consequences. Summing across types, 23 students received suspensions. Thus, suspensions represented almost two-thirds (62.2%) of all consequences imposed on students who participated in school Conferences. Of the total 53 students who participated in Conferences, over two-fifths (43.4%) received a school suspension for some period of time.

Chart 7.n. indicates the number of school consequences associated with the type of incident Conferenced. Taking the assault-related incidents together, two-thirds of responsible young people (14 or 66.7%) had an associated school consequence. As can be noted from the chart, over one-half (12 or 52.2%) of the 23 Conferenced incidents that did not involve a school consequence were within the group related conflict category. All of these incidents were within one Conference involving 12 young people.

Chart 7.o. presents a cross-tabulation of school consequences by incident types.

As indicated, 37 school consequences were given to the 25 students who received at least one consequence each. The most variance in terms of school consequence was within the assault category. In terms of absolute numbers, the two students responsible for tire slashing (three counts each) received the highest number of consequences as they each received a five day suspension, were required to compensate the victims, and write letters of apology. The two students involved in spraying a noxious substance received two school consequences each: a five day suspension and a formal reinstatement. A junior high student responsible for an assault also received two school consequences: a five day suspension and a period of home schooling. The other students who received school consequences received one consequence each.

Table of Contents

Previous

Continue