147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CANADIANCRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Yvon Dandurand*I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last 25 years or so, in Canada, there has been a substantial growth in the number and animprovement in the quality of the opportunities available to the community to become involved in thetreatment of offenders. That growth paralleled the growth of community involvement in crime prevention
and the advent of problem-oriented policing. These trends are all interrelated. In Canada, there is a strong
non-governmental sector in the country and that sector now plays a crucial role in crime prevention, victim
assistance and the delivery of assistance, treatment and supervision services for offenders. There are also
numerous community-based agencies providing mental health and substance abuse services in the community,often to offenders.
I cannot here give a detailed account of the different ways in which community members can be andare involved in offender treatment. Instead, I would like to focus on five main areas which I think areinteresting for international counterparts. They are: (1) participatory justice and, in particular, the role of thecommunity in what we call “sentencing circles”; (2) the involvement of the community in our youth justicesystem; (3) the role of citizens’ advisory committees within the federal penitentiary system; (4) the role ofcommunity members in what we refer to as “circles of support”; (5) the role of the Aboriginal community insupporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of Aboriginal offenders.

II. PARTICIPATORY JUSTICE
The Law Commission of Canada noted the emergence of a community justice movement in Canada:“Disillusionment with the formal criminal justice system has led to a willingness to innovate and experimentin an effort to do things better. This is reflected in the history of neighbourhood justice centres, the continuing
development of new programmes and processes (such as healing circles and group conferencing), a strong
commitment to seeing results in action, and a growing interest in programme evaluation that is faithful to theconsensus-based goals of community restorative justice.”1
The expression “participatory justice” is not used very frequently in Canada, but it refers generally toa number of community-based initiatives that promote and facilitate the involvement of the community inproblem solving, responding to crime and dealing with the offenders. The emphasis is often on the offender(and the victims) rather than only on the offence. Depending on the scheme, the community acts more orless autonomously from the criminal justice system.
Aboriginal communities, in particular, have shown an interest in becoming involved in what we could referto as “aboriginal community justice”. Aboriginal offenders are very much overrepresented in the Canadiancorrectional system. Aboriginal communities have developed initiatives in response to an overwhelming needfor emotional and spiritual healing in their communities. Furthermore, for many Aboriginal communities,* Senior Associate, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy; Associate Vice-President,
Research and Graduate Studies, University of the Fraser Valley, Canada.
1 Law Commission of Canada (2003). Transforming Relationships through Participatory Justice. Ottawa: Law Commission ofCanada, p. 28.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

such initiatives are part of a larger movement to assert control over their own governance and over justiceinstitutions.

A. Sentencing Circles
Circle sentencing is perhaps one of the best Canadian examples of participatory justice. In that process,members of the community can become directly involved in responding to incidents of crime and social
disorder. In Canada, this is usually done through the formation of a Community Justice Committee (CJC)
that may also include representatives from justice agencies. The common objective of the members of sucha committee is to find more constructive ways to respond to conflict in their community. Cases are referredto the committee, generally from the police, prosecutors and judges, although cases may also come from theschools, victim services programmes and families.
The Committee plays an integral role in the overall circle process, including liaising with criminal justiceagencies and community organizations as well as with the various stakeholder groups in the community.2
The operation of the circle sentencing process is community-specific, meaning that it may (and should) vary
between communities. In fact, the circle sentencing process relies heavily upon community volunteers for
its success.3
The circles are also applied in situations involving juvenile offenders. The committee can often mobilize
community support for the victim and the young offender throughout, and following the circle process.
Restorative programmes offer some very real and effective alternatives to more formal and stigmatizing
youth justice measures. In particular, because of their educational value, they are particularly useful for
promoting diversionary measures and for providing alternatives to measures that would deprive a youth of
his or her liberty. Many such programmes offer unique opportunities to create a community of care aroundchildren and youth in conflict with the law. Public support for restorative justice programmes for youth isusually relatively easy to garner.4

B. Community Conferencing
Community conferencing is also used sometimes as an alternative measure programme to which an offendercan be diverted from the criminal justice system. Such programmes tend to be managed by community groups
or agencies, with or without financial support from the government. The conference usually involves those mostconcerned about the offender and the victim and any other member of the community with an interest in theprocess (e.g. a school teacher in the case of a young offender, or an employer). The agency or community groupto which the offender is referred is also responsible for monitoring the offender’s compliance with the terms of
the agreement and may or may not function under the direct oversight of law enforcement or justice officials.
C. Issues of Fairness
The involvement of the community in shaping a response to an offender’s behaviour can sometimes
work at the expense of the procedural safeguards that would normally be in place to protect the rights ofthat offender. There are obviously issues of fairness that cannot be neglected. The Law Commission ofCanada has offered some general recommendations on developing fair participatory processes.5 There
does not exist yet a comprehensive regulatory framework for such initiatives. In the absence of a Canadian
regulatory framework, one may rely on the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative
Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters . Among other things, these standards emphasize the need to obtainthe consent of both the offender and the victim before applying such measures.

2 Bazemore, G. and C. T. Griffiths (1997). “Conferences, Circles, Boards, and Mediations: Scouting the ‘New Wave’ ofCommunity Justice Decision Making Approaches.” Federal Probation 61, (June), pp. 25-38.
3 Pranis, K., Stuart, B., and M. Wedge (2003). Peacemaking Circles—From Crime to Community. St. Paul (Minn.): Living
Justice Press.
4 Dandurand, Y. and C. Griffiths (UNODC) (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. New York: United Nations.
5 Law Commission of Canada (2003). Transforming Relationships through Participatory Justice. Ottawa: Law Commission ofCanada, p. 217.

42147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

III. YOUTH JUSTICEThe Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) encourages the use of provisions to keep young offenders
from being processed in the formal juvenile justice system. Provisions in the Act encourage juvenile justiceofficials to use what are called ‘extrajudicial measures’ for juvenile offenders who have committed less seriousoffences.
The Act also sets out very clear objectives for the use of such extrajudicial measures. These objectives
are: (1) to encourage family, victim, and community involvement in the process; (2) to provide theopportunity for the victim to participate in the decision-making process; (3) to repair the harm caused toboth the victim and the community; and, 4) to ensure that the extrajudicial measures used are proportionate
to the seriousness of the offence.
Under the Act, police officers and prosecutors are encouraged to use pre-charge and post-charge
diversionary measures. The following is a list of diversion measures that police and prosecutors areauthorized to use under the YCJA: (1) taking no further action; (2) warnings (informal warnings by policeofficers); (3) police cautions (more formal warnings by the police), and (4) police referrals of young persons
to community programmes or agencies that may help them not to commit offences. The referral may be to awide range of community resources, including recreation programmes and counselling agencies.
Although the Act states that the police must consider referring troubled youth to community programmes,
the option tends to be underutilized. There remains a need to strengthen police-community partnerships
by providing programmes and tools to encourage such referrals. As first responders, police are well situatedto prevent youth from continuing down criminal pathways. They need to be connected to the communityresources.
The BC Centre for Safe Schools and Communities, at my university, has just launched a database oncommunity resources which can be used directly and easily by front line police officers. The tool provides
front line police officers with easy access to information that can assist them in referring young offenders
to mental health and drug addiction services in their communities. The database will also enable greater
citizen/community participation in the youth justice system through community programmes and services
for drug addiction and mental health services targeted specifically at youth.
The Act provides a variety of opportunities for justice system personnel to divert youth from the formal
criminal justice process. One of these possibilities is the “family group conference” or the “community groupconference”. The utility of conducting conferences is also acknowledged by the Act. The law authorizes andencourages administrators to use conferences in the decision-making process for young offenders. Underthe Act, ‘a conference is defined as a group of people brought together to give advice to a police officer, judge,
justice of the peace, prosecutor, provincial director or youth worker who is required to make a decision underthe Act’.
Conference groups typically involve a variety of people and may include the youth’s parental figures, thevictim(s), community members or community agency personnel or other professionals whose expertise isneeded in the decision-making process. Conference groups have the ability to make various recommendations
about the following decisions: (1) extrajudicial measures to be used; (2) conditions for release from pre-trial
detention; (3) sentences; and, (4) reintegration (re-entry) plans for the juveniles once they have been released
from custody and are ready to return to their family and the community.
Conferences conducted within the YCJA legislative framework tend to take one of two forms: they are
either restorative in nature or are conducted as professional case conferences. When used as a restorative
mechanism, conferences address the harms caused by the juvenile’s offence to both the victim and thecommunity. A professional case conference on the other hand is conducted to develop and implement
strategies for addressing the young offender’s needs, in addition to determining how community services
may be used to assist the young person.

43RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

IV. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) are autonomous committees that reflect the interest of citizens
in contributing to the quality of Canada's federal correctional services and programmes. The mission ofeach CAC is “to contribute to the protection of society by interacting with staff of the Correctional Serviceof Canada (CSC), the public and offenders by providing impartial advice and recommendations about
correctional services and by acting as a liaison with the community” (CSC website). They have been in
operation since 1965 (and became mandatory for all penitentiaries in 1977).
According to CSC, close to 600 citizens participate in 106 committees across the country. Committee
members represent various social, cultural, and demographic backgrounds and occupations, and usuallyreside in proximity to the operational unit for which the committee serves. They are appointed for a periodof two years.
The role of the committees is defined in Commissioner directive No. 023, 2003-03-17 : “Citizens’
Advisory Committees: (a) provide advice to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) regarding correctional
operations, programmes, policies, and plans; (b) act as impartial observers of and provide feedback on the
day-to-day activities and operations of the CSC; (c) liaise with staff and offenders and their representatives,
other organizations including criminal justice and advocacy groups and the community to address
correctional issues; and, (d) in performing these roles, local committees should establish clear objectives
and undertake activities that will support them. (...) These objectives should be reviewed and updatedyearly.”
These committees are involved in numerous activities, involving the institutions, the offenders and thecommunity. I can perhaps give you some examples.

V. CIRCLES OF SUPPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A circle of support and accountability is a form of community reintegration programme that seeks toreduce the risk of reoffending by sex offenders who are re-entering the community without supervisionat their warrant expiry date. Based in the religious community, the circle aims to enhance public safety byworking in cooperation with the police, neighbourhood groups, victims and treatment professionals.
This programme was originally conceived in Canada as a means to fill a gap in services left by government
policy that is, regarding those individuals that had served their entire court sentence in prison and werereleased at the expiration of their warrant. These individuals were being released without a formal process ofaftercare and without any assistance or supervision. The programme was initiated out of necessity to workwith released offenders who were most likely to fail to successfully reintegrate society, presumably because ofa lack of community support or other resources. Many of these individuals were untreated sex offenders andtheir return to the community was very likely to attract significant media attention.6
The programme is a fine example of community participation and of successful partnerships between thecommunity and the justice system. The volunteers involved in the programme are carefully selected fromthe community, professionally trained, and aptly supported. An agreement is established between the coremember (the offender) and up to seven circle volunteers. Participation is voluntary on both sides. However,once the agreement is agreed to, it becomes the road map for both the support and the accountability thatcan be expected by all participants. The outer “professional” circle refers to the support, guidance andinterventions that are provided by professionally trained participants and representatives of official law
enforcement or correctional agencies.7

6 Brown, R. E. and Y. Dandurand (2007). “Successful Strategies that Contribute to Safer Communities”, in Maio, S. (Ed.),
Selected Papers on Successful Crime Reduction and Prevention Strategies in the Urban Context. Riyadh: Naif Arab University
for Security Sciences, pp. 77-88.
7 See also: Wilson, R., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J., Prinzo, M., and Cortoni, F. (2007). “Circles of Support and Accountability:
Engaging Community Volunteers in the Management of High-Risk Sexual Offenders,” Howard Journal , Vol. 46 No 1. (February2007), pp. 6-7.

44

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

An evaluation of a pilot project based on this model was conducted by Wilson, Picheca and Prinzo.8 It
compared the offenders supported by the programme to 60 offenders from a matched comparison group. The
60 high-risk sex offenders who received the support of the programme reoffended at a rate 50 to 60% below
the expected rate. Furthermore, the offences committed by the Circle supported offenders were less brutal,
less invasive, and less injurious than the index offence – a harm reduction effect.

VI. ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTAs I mentioned before, Aboriginal offenders continue to be disproportionately represented at all levelsof the Canadian criminal justice system. According to CSC, at the end of March 2007, Aboriginal peoplecomprised 17.0% of federally sentenced offenders although the general Aboriginal population is only 2.7% of
the Canadian adult population.
A little over ten years ago, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board of Canada
developed a framework for enhancing the role of Aboriginal communities. Special funds were allocated to theinitiative ($18.6 million over five years; 2000-01 to 2004-05). Research had demonstrated that reconnecting
the offenders with families and communities improved outcomes and reduced recidivism. A lot of thatfunding was therefore used to develop additional Aboriginal healing lodges with Aboriginal communities.
Healing lodges are minimum security Aboriginal community facilities that offer culturally appropriateservices and programmes to offenders in an environment that incorporates Aboriginal peoples’ values,traditions and beliefs.
This was to be the beginning of greater involvement of Aboriginal communities in the reintegration ofoffenders. Initially, while many Aboriginal communities were interested in developing healing lodges, theyoften lacked the capacity and/or expertise to engage in the planning, development and implementation ofcommunity-based alternatives.
Aboriginal communities are also involved through the work of Elders. First Nations, Métis and Inuit
Elders contribute throughout the sentence to meeting the cultural and spiritual needs of diverse Aboriginal
offenders. They provide guidance and leadership in correctional planning/intervention for those who wish tofollow a traditional healing path.
Finally, community involvement is also fostered through the work of Aboriginal liaison officers who help
ensure that the unique histories and needs of individual Aboriginal offenders in institutions and of theircommunities are understood and met. They also facilitate interactions between offenders and non-Aboriginal
staff to ensure that the offenders’ spiritual and cultural needs are addressed.

VII. CONCLUSIONAs shown above, there is no shortage of opportunities for community members to get involved in
the treatment of offenders. Hundreds of groups and thousands of volunteers get involved each year. The
Correctional Service of Canada alone reports that approximately 9,000 Canadians, from all walks of life,
volunteer at the Service, helping in the penitentiaries as well as in the community. Volunteers contribute to avariety of institution-based programmes, including chaplaincy, recreation activities, classroom and workshop
instruction, social events and cultural activities. In the community, they support the families of offenders andhelp released offenders readjust to life in the community.
Many services have effectively become dependent on the help of community members and non-governmentalorganization partners to deliver offender rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. The commitment to public
safety and offender treatment that these community-based agencies and organizations have demonstrated has
greatly enhanced the ability of the justice system to offer correctional programmes. These groups have assisted
the system in dealing with the increasingly complex needs of today’s offender population.
The experience community members have of their involvement in the justice system varies. Some of
8 Wilson, R., Picheca, J.E., and M. Prinzo. 2005. “Circles of Support and Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project inSouth-Central Ontario”. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

them comment from time to time on the trivialization of their role and the unnecessarily limits and constraints
imposed on the involvement by the justice and correctional institutions. However, generally speaking, theexperience of these community members seems to be largely positive and rewarding. They, for the most part,feel that their own contribution makes a difference not only in the life of the offenders, but also in terms ofpublic safety.
We certainly can deplore the general lack of research to assess the impact of community involvement in
the treatment of offenders. In Canada, certainly, that research is very limited. However, most people whoare familiar with the Canadian system would probably agree that the growing involvement of the community
in the treatment of offenders has helped us make our justice system more open and transparent, and moreaccountable. This is indeed a very positive development.

46