ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé
Archived Content Contenu archivé
Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.
This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.
I ea
Programs Branch User Report
1 The Rise and Fall of Justice Councils in British Columbia
No. 1986-9
_...4
IOEB 532 C6 y of the Solicitor General of Canada 1986 c.2
Secretariat 8 5-3 2 C G 11n
C' 2
I Copeght of this %per authorizationdocument any intended use must does not belong to the Crown. be obtained from the author for Les droits Pas rétat. dauteur présent document Toute dolt document être utilisation du contenu dunappailiennent présent i approuvée préalablement LIBRARY par MINISTRY OF TSF. SOLICITOR lauteur. GENERAL OF CvNADA OCT n
• • • E OU SOL:. IC. JR O
r-ANADA K IA \ t,w CosS tsrir)
The Rise and Fall of Justice Councils in British Columbia
No. 1986-9
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. This report may not be published, cited or reproduced without permission of the Ministry. The Rise and Fall of Justice Councils in British Columbia
John Cossom and David Turner School of Social Work University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia
December, 1985 The authors are grateful for financial support provided through a research grant from the University of Victoria, and from the Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General Canada;' without which this study would not have been possible. Table of Contents Page
Introduction 1 Methodology 2
A Change in Government 3 The Emergence of the Justice Council Idea 4
The Justice Development Commission — A Vehicle of Change 6 A Local Community Base for Justice Councils Emerges 7 The Community Development Model • 9 The Formation of the Justice Councils Branch 10 Goals of the Justice Councils Branch 11 The Administrative Structure. 13 Funding the Councils 14 The Regional Coordinators 16 The Role of Coordinator 17 The Coordinators' Group 19
How a Council Was Formed — Theory and Practice 21 The Objectives for Justice Councils 24
The Regional Coordinators Look at Goals for the Councils 27 Some Form of Citizen Involvement with the Justice System 27 The Coordination of Professionals 29 Community Involvement in Justice Related Projects 29 The Purposes of Councils — Members' Points of View 30 How Did the Councils Achieve Their Objectives' 33 Citizen Participation 33 Decentralization 35 Communication 36 Coordination 39 Planning 41 Innovation 42 The Practical Problems of Implementing Justice Councils 44 Changes in Government — Justice Councils Relationship, 1975-1979 . . 47
The Decline of Justice Councils OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 48
The Provincial Association (1977-1981). . . o 0 o 6 0 55
The Removal of the Justice Coordinators OOOOO . . . 60
Other Factors OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 63
Comparison with Community Resource Boards . . OOOOOOO 64
Lessons Learned OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO • • Oe• •0 66
Cl osing Comments OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO 69 Introduction
This paper traces, the rise and fall of Justice Councils in British Columbia from the time that the idea was conceived in 1972, through their implementation and development and on to their gradual disappearance from the scene in the early 1980's. (See Appendix A for a Justice Councils
Chronology) The aspects addressed will include: the climate and prevailing ideology of the times that led to the emergence of Justice Councils, the purposes that were envisaged for them, the model which guided their development, the ways in which they were established, activities that the various Justice Councils undertook and the process and reasons for their demise.
Justice Councils were formed to enable citizens and professionals to participate in and provide input to the discussion of justice issues at a local level. Their development was a small part of many changes that occurred in British Columbia at a time when there was a government commitment to reform and decentralize the justice system, to seek greater communication with citizens about justice issues, and to better coordinate justice services for people.
This approach to involving citizens in the justice system in British
Columbia represented a unique Canadian social experiment in this field.
Even though the history of Justice Councils is a relatively brief and recent one, it is one which warrants documentation for the record. There are undoubtedly valuable lessons to be learned from it. The authors undertook this study because of their interest in and commitment to the principle of citizen participation in social and justice services, and bring this bias to the work. The research was initially funded by a small grant from the University of Victoria. Then an
1 invitation from the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada was accepted to complete the research with additional funding. One of the authors was an active participant in a Justice Council, while the other was not in British Columbia when most of the events under study took place.
Methodolo9y Because Justice Councils were quite a recent phenomenon and have not long departed the scene, most of the principal actors in them are still available to talk about their ideas and experiences. The vast majority of them continue to live'in British Columbia. Many continue to work in the justice arena. Hence, the primary method of data collection was through structured interviews with participants who played a variety of roles in the Justice Council movement. Interviews were audio—tape recorded, transcribed and analyzed as the principal source of data for this report. A copy of the standard questionnaire used is in Appendix B, which was sent to all respondents in advance. People interviewed by the authors included politicians, justice planners, senior civil servants, administrators and staff responsible for direct work with Justice Councils, and a sample of actual lay members of the councils themselves. A list of those persons interviewed and their roles in relation to Justice Councils appears in Appendix C. The authors greatly appreciate the helpfulness of the thirty—one people who agreed to be interviewed for this study. It is important to note the timing and context for these interviews. Our respondents were interviewed between 1983 and 1985, and were recalling events five to ten years old. Many people's reflections about the past were undoubtedly coloured by the more recent context of serious restraint and cutbacks in virtually all social services and justice programs.
2 Other data were drawn from responses to a written questionnaire completed by participants who attended the final Justice Council Conference
held in Cranbrook, B.C. in June, 1981. Finally, other information was
gathered from a variety of sources of existing published and unpublished written material about the Justice Councils, such as reports, evaluations,
speeches, government documents and newspaper articles.
A Change in Government
August 1972 saw the New Democratic Party sweep to power in British Columbia after 20 years of Social Credit government under Premier W.A.C. Bennett. It is fair to say that traditionally politics have been more polar and conflictual in British Columbia than in any other Canadian
province. A change in government in British Columbia signals distinct
changes in direction that are reflective of widely divergent ideologies of the two parties that dominate the Provincial scene. Such was very evident in 1972 as the N.D.P. formed the government in British Columbia for the first time. One of the many areas targeted for reform by the new government was the administration of justice. Beyond this, the N.D.P. came to power with a commitment to increase citizen participation in the processes of government. It is also evident that even without a change in government pressing items such as court structure and administration, law reform and a host of other justice issues were pushing themselves onto the agenda for political attention. In fact prior to the election in 1972, both the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the
Law Reform Commission of British Columbia had already been involved in separate assessments, which called for major reviews of the justice system. (22,p.2) Hence, the new Attorney General in the N.D.P. government, Alex MacDonald, came to his portfolio with a strong commitment to and a mandate for change and reform. It appears as if few specific proposals emerged in the election campaign for altering the administration of justice. Other issues dominated the election campaigns of 1972. However, it could be safely assumed that change would follow in this, as in many other areas, given a change in government. The authors could find no evidence or discussion of the specific concept of Justice Councils in the election campaign. It is safe to say that the roots of this idea are not to be found as part of an existing N.D.P. policy or campaign platform. Rather a political climate of change existed stemming from a general philosophy of citizen participation in decision making and decentralization of power which had been enunciated by the N.D.P. One concludes that while change of varying kinds would have emerged in the justice system regardless of the party elected in 1972, the development of Justice Councils as one piece of change almost certainly would not have occurred without a shift in political power in 1972.
The Emergence of the Justice Council Idea The precise origins of this specific approach to citizen involvement in justice planning are more difficult to pinpoint than something tangible like the source of a stream. The source of this social innovation flows from a constellation of ideas that were influencing the thinking of politicians and bureaucrats in the early 1970's. Undoubtedly justice planners were influenced by more global trends of the times too. Among the dominant emergent North American themes in the 1960's and early 1970's were those that emphasized the need for coordinated long range planning, and for conceptualizing the administration of justice as a whole system of interconnected parts. Certainly this approach was gathering
4 steam in British Columbia, with the wish to rationalize and connect the separate and fragmented parts of the system into a working whole — police,
courts, legal services and corrections. A second theme that prevailed, which had its roots in various developments in North America at the time and certainly fitted the N.D.P. ideology, was the wish to involve the
public in the process of planned change and providing input for decision making. This reflected a concern about the way in which government bureaucracies had become large, impenetrable, technical authorities, increasingly distant from the citizens to whom they ultimately are accountable.
Apart from these general factors of social and political climate which greatly affect the form that change takes, more specific beginnings for Justice Councils can be identified. A Task Force on Corrections Services and Facilities was struck by the new provincial government in December 1972, with Dr. Malcolm Matheson, then B.C.'s Deputy Director of Corrections, as its chairman. Although concerned primarily with corrections this task force made some key broad recommendations, which reflect the themes discussed above. These included: a) The establishment of a planning unit with the responsibility for integration of planning in the criminal justice system; b) the creation of a master planning council consisting of key individuals in the system to oversee the planning process; c) the provision of channels for citizen input into the justice
system. (8)
This task force report is important in that it sets the stage for the later development of Justice Councils. It led to the development of the Justice Coordinating Council — the title that emerged for the master council. One of its first recommendations in a September, 1973 paper prepared by Malcolm
5 Matheson was the creation of regional professional coordinating councils to act as sources of input to the central planning body and as liaison between planners and widely differing social and geographic areas of the province. (Matheson interview) It was the recommendation for these regional professional councils that was to evolve into the formation of what later became known as Justice Councils. It is important to note that while the notion of Justice Councils was new to Canada, Matheson, — who had done graduate work in the U.S. and worked on the President's Crime Commission,— had seen the development of regional planning councils as an outgrowth of State justice planning agencies. The focus in these U.S. Councils was on bringing together professionals from different and often disparate parts of the justice system for coordinated input to a central planning agency. Matheson was firmly convinced of the need for regional input in planning justice changes in British Columbia, and is one of the conceptual architects of Justice Councils, even if they later took on a different form than he originally envisaged.
The Justice Development Commission — A Vehicle of Change In British Columbia a legislative step was taken which laid a further foundation for the development of Justice Councils. This was passage of the Administration of Justice Act, in April 1974, which established the Justice Development Commission (J.D.C.).* The J.D.C. was given broad powers which included, among others: (a) developing co—ordinated plans for the future development of the administration of justice in the Province; (b) conducting and financing research into the administration of justice;
*For an interesting analysis of the development and work of the J.D.C. see J. Terence Morley "The Justice Development Commission," Canadian Public Administration, Spring 1976, Vol. 19, No.l.
6 (c) developing experimental programs and projects in justice services; (d) making recommendations to the Attorney—General for change, reorganization and general improvement of the administration of justice. (1, section 5) Major features of this commission are that it was a creature of the legislature, given a very broad mandate, and hiring powers and funding ($1.5 million for its intitial year) that permitted it to operate innovatively largely outside of normal bureaucratic systems such as the Public Service Commission and the laws that governed hiring of civil servants. It was seen as having a five year existence when it was created, and was initially chaired by the deputy Attorney—General, David Vickers.
The J.D.C. was the primary body for revamping the various parts of the justice system. It served as a think tank and centre of policy making that played a significant role in producing far reaching change and considerable innovation in justice services. Its members were the senior bureaucrats of the Department of the Attorney—General with backgrounds in law and criminology representing systems such as police, courts, crown counsel, legal and correctional services. The J.D.C. was the vehicle through which Justice Councils were actually debated, planned and mandated. The Councils were not created through legislation, but by policy and funding of the J.D.C.
A Local Community Base for Justice Councils Emerges
On April 15, 1974, D.L. McComb was hired to fill the J.D.C.'s newly created position of Director of Justice Councils. Don McComb was a British Columbian, who from 1968-74 had been with the Department of the Solicitor General in Ottawa in its consultation centre. Here he had focussed on a consultative model between government and many community groups, with a
7 view to stimulating community based approaches to corrections, crime prevention, and a systems approach to thinking about justice. He brought with him a professional social work background, an orientation and strong commitment towards public participation and consultation as an important component of institutional change, and experience in actually implementing consultative processes which involved a wide variety of community groups in justice development. The selection of a person with McComb's orientations was obviously a major variable in determining the Council's development. He became a significant architect and engineer in formulating ideas and building citizen involvement. It is important to recall that Matheson's original plan for justice councils embodied two major principles. First, they were seen as regional in representation. Second, they were to have as members key professionals employed in various parts of the justice system. In this way the needs and responses of various parts of the province could be tapped and these Councils could be vehicles for coordination, communication and planning by bringing together key players from interdependent parts of the system. In Matheson's plan, a later phase of development would have seen further localization of the Councils with citizens involved in an advisory capacity beside the professional members. With McComb's arrival on the scene an important two shifts in thinking took place which were to place a different stamp on the formation of Councils. He travelled around the province testing out ideas for Justice Councils and taking the pulse of the variety of community interests in justice issues. To assist in his survey tours of the Province, McComb hired two consultants with a strong justice background in British Columbia, one who had a feel for the rural and one for the urban scene, — Jim Majcher and Frank Mullally. Both later became regional coordinators. It was the
8 field testing of these three people that produced the crucial decision to focus first on local, rather than regional councils. This was to have great implications for the shape of the Justice Council movement in British Columbia.
By the end of 1974 McComb had moved quickly to hire nine regional coordinators whose major responsibility was to stimulate the development of councils in individual communities in their regions. This reflected the thinking that it was crucial to encourage real grass roots participation in the discussion of justice issues, and to focus on concerns that were indigenous to particular communities, rather than initially establishing councils on a regional basis. Thus, the important decision was implemented to develop local, community councils as a first priority. Secondly, while it was expected that professionals in the justice system might choose to participate in such councils, McComb's vision of membership was that it should be open to include anyone who had an interest and wanted to share in the experiment to open the justice system to the community. So it was that membership in Justice Councils was broadened to include lay persons as well as those whose careers were based in the system. This too was a decision that affected the Councils in a'multitude of ways.
The Community Development Model •
According to McComb there was no detailed, set procedure for actually developing a council. Instead there was a general approach that is a familiar one in community development circles. Typically, a regional coordinator would seek out key people in a community who had demonstrated leadership and involvement in justice issues. These could be professionals working in some division of the system, or lay persons who could be readily
9 identified as potential members. After drawing these people together, a communitY meeting was usually held, open to all interested persons. At this time ideas were shared about the opportunities for créating a "window" for citizens to have a view of potential changes in the justice system, and one through which government could look at peoples', thoughts, concerns and proposals. Emphasis was placed on building upon whatever network or focus of concern and activity that existed in a community. Most coordinators had lived in and were familiar with the regions in which they were hired to form councils, and beyond that many brought with them a network of contacts in the justice arena. The coordinators played the role of community organizers, animateurs and _catalysts. They stimulated people to think about getting together to talk about justice concerns; they encouraged citizens and professionals to join in a group to create a forum for ideas to be debated; and they facilitated general meetings. In a relatively short space of time, Justice Councils began popping up all over British Columbia.
The Formation of the Justice Councils Branch In June 1974, the Justice Council Branch in the Department of the Attorney—General was formed by the Justice Development Commission. Its head office was in Victoria, the seat of government, and housed McComb, an administrative assistant and a secretary. McComb reported to and was a member and vice—chairman of the commission. Here discussions continued to take place as to the role and development of the councils, as one of many justice system reforms and innovations on the commission's growing agenda. Later in 1974, Mike Harcourt was hired as the Assistant Director of Justice Councils on a contract basis. He remained in this role until early
10 1976, and had responsibility with McComb for overseeing the establishment of local councils. Harcourt was a lawyer with sound knowledge of legal aid systems and involvement in store—front law offices and in stimulating community action and development to deal with local issues. His major responsibility was to consult on the philosophy and strategies of community development and animation that took place at the local level. By the end of 1975, 52 Justice Councils had been organized in 9 regions, covering the entire province. (See Appendix D for a list of councils). Interestingly enough, three regional councils also emerged with membership comprised of local Justice Council chairpersons and some other key members. These regional councils were established to open up communication between local councils, share information, address issues common to a region and to attack concerns on a regional basis. With the development of regional councils thoughts were already turning to the possibility of a provincial council, which later came into being and is discussed elsewhere in this report. (pp.55-60) .
It should be stated early in this report that the decision to develop a large number of local councils using what can be called a locality development strategy inevitably gave rise to a wide variety of styles of council, and of course as many different foci of concern as there were councils.
Goals of the Justice Councils Branch As one would.expect, with the development of a new entity like Justice
Councils, the development of objectives for such a program is quite fluid, especially in the early stages. The earliest set of draft goal statements is dated June 12, 1974, and reflects the preliminary thinking that councils would be regional bodies of
11 the Justice Development Commission. Beyond this the priorized objectives were: to foster system—wide planning of justice services; to co- ordinate the utilization of resources necessary to improve information sharing; to promote innovation; and to promote citizen participation in the justice system. (4) By the second draft of July 3rd, 1974 the term "Justice Councils" had emerged, and some re—priorization of objectives had taken place. A further draft was developed in March 1975. The overall aim was: "To establish Justice Councils as a means of bringing about co- ordination within the total administration of justice system (police, courts, corrections, and legal services) and providing the opportunities for related officials and citizens to understand and become engaged in justice services. All of this activity is directed toward opening the system to greater use and co—ordination of the resources available and to remove barriers of communication. Specific goals were: 1. To provide opportunities for local citizens to participate in the planning and operation of justice services. 2. To aid in the coordination of the various segments of the justice system with a view to their interdependence consistent with an integrated justice system. (a) To recruit representatives from the justice field including representatives from law enforcement, courts, corrections and legal services. (b) To establish programs involving the total justice system (Provincial, Federal, Municipal, Volunteer) with other comprehensive services including Human Resources, Education, Employment, Health and Mental Health. 3. To promote the development and utilization of local priorities and preferences in the planning and administration of justice services. (a) To identify justice needs in the provincial regions. (b) To effect processes for identifying service priorities to meet the identified needs in regard to: (a) training; (b) innovative programs; (c) research projects etc. 4. To stimulate continuous revision of the justice system improving the regional and local levels of social justice, and, as conditions require, to intitiate legislative change.
12 5. To develop the communication flows related to justice: (a) To promote communication within each individual Council and between all Councils jointly. (b) To promote communication between all justice services and other comprehensive services within each region and between all regions. (c) To promote communication between the Justice Development Commission (Department of the Attorney—General) and the community and/or Justice Council staff." (7) The general goal themes that are identifiable in these statements include decentralization, public participation, system coordination, improving communication, planning and stimulation of change. These are ambitious and. far reaching goals, which reflect the mood of the times. A need was felt to tackle identified problems of an outdated system beset by fragmentation, centralization and inadequate communication. These were the goals set for the Justice Councils Branch, to be achieved primarily through the development of councils at local, regional, and later a provincial level. The councils were one small piece in a large mosiac of justice system change.
The Administrative Structure
As noted, the Justice Council Branch was a creation of the Justice Development Commission, and its director was a member and vice—chairman of that body. The deputy minister of the Department of the Attorney—General, who chaired the commission, took a very active interest in Justice Councils. It was to deputy minister Vickers to whom the director reported administratively in the early years. However, there was a high level of autonomy for the director and the regional coordinators to get on with the job of facilitating the actual development of councils. According to the deputy minister there was a commitment from the beginning that programs
13 developed and staff hired through the J.D.C., — with its special funds and
'ability to operate outside of the Public Service Commission, — would ultimately be moved into the public service streams. (D. Vickers
interview). This was done in April 1975 with the Justice Councils staff.
Also at this time Don . McComb began reporting to the newly appointed
Executive Director of the J.D.C., John Ekstedt, rather than to the deputy minister. This was seen by the director as a retrogressive step. He objected to it since it added a bureaucratic layer between the councils and the senior civil servant in the department. However, the rationale was sustained that the deputy minister had to reduce the number of people who reported to him directly. He had a great deal on his plate. Other changes in administrative structure occurred later, and will be discussed in other sections of this report.
Funding the Councils The actual budget for the local councils was very small. There was a deliberate intention to create councils that had independence from government, and which would not be seen as yet another level of bureaucracy in the community. Hence, the decision was made to make very small grants available to cover basic costs, such as renting a hall for a meeting, or communication and publicity costs. There was to be no money for capital expenditure or salaries at the actual Council level. This kept administration simple, as well as protecting the pure voluntary nature of the councils.
In October 1976 a $20,000, one year agreement was reached with the
Solicitor General of Canada, which allowed for funds not exceeding $400 to
be allocated to a maximum of 50 councils. (16) These seed funds were in support of travel and general administrative costs, excluded capital
14 Government that Justice Councils represented a useful source of grass roots
input on justice 'matters for various levels of government. This contract
was administered by the Justice Councils Branch. At a later stage, with the emergence of a Provincial Association of Justice Councils, this group was given the responsibility of allocating similar small sustaining grants to the local councils. Our interviews uncovered dissenting opinions about the approach of minimal funding to the Councils. Some felt that this was an entirely appropriate strategy. Others thought that the lack of money was evidence of a basic neglect of commitment on the part of government, and that it undermined the Councils' effectiveness. Another view was that even the small grant to each council for incidentals was unnecessary, since "very few of the issues that (the council) tackled were ones that needed a lot of money to do coordinating and advocating and so on.... The $400 was a distraction, trust me!" (McClintock interview) These questions raised about financing Justice Councils are typical of the difficult ones faced by governments in relation to funding voluntary citizen groups. They are not easy ones to answer, and highlight important policy issues. Clearly the councils themselves absorbed very little in the way of direct funding during their existence. The major costs were for the salaries of three head office staff, nine regional coordinators and their full or part—time secretaries operating to develop and support the councils. In terms of the overall costs of the administration of justice in British Columbia, the Justice Councils Branch represented a small drop in the departmental budget, with minimal allocations to the councils themselves, by design.
15 The Regional Coordinators McComb was able to pick his first regional coordinators from amongst 145 applicants from across Canada. For the most part, a competition selection process was used, although all of the appointments were outside of the normal Public Service Commission procedures, and undoubtedly McComb had a strong voice in the choices made. Applicants usually were panelled using key professionals from the regions in the selection process. Persons were chosen from a diversity of backgrounds who had demonstrated innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial talent in their previous activities. There were two ex—colleagues of McComb from the Boys Club or Y.M.C.A. back east. A couple were lawyers or had experience in the criminal justice system. Others had a community development background or had worked closely on a community level —whether as a businessman, an elected official, an ordained minister, or teacher. Despite their diversity, it is interesting to note that the coordinators came out of mainstream community roles. None could be said to fit the stereotype of "wild eyed radical community organiser". The justice system, because of its high visibility, level of public impact, and domination by the legal profession tends to attract the interest of the community establishment, rather than people on the margin. Consciously or not, McComb selected as his coordinators people who had a central commitment to opening up and reforming the justice system and a belief in genuine public participation, but who could be accepted by the public at large. It appears that among the criteria used for selection were an ability to work effectively with communities in an independent way; a skill in communication; an "entrepreneurial initiative" in that coordinators were "travelling salesman of a new idea"; and an ability to function as a part of a team. (McComb interview)
16 It is dangerous to generalize too far about the kind of people these coordinators were, because of their diversity of backgrounds. However,
they appear to be people who had made a mark either in their own communities, their places of employment or their fields of practice. They had demonstrated an ability to be innovative. Few came from a strong
bureaucratic experience, though the degree of radicalism in each of the coordinators varied significantly, as did their previous professional involvement in the criminal justice system. They were almost all achievers and go—getters in their different contexts and had sufficient communication skills that they could interact with lay community and justice professionals too. Only two out of all the coordinators ever hired were women, — a reflection of male dominance in the justice field. As one might expect the coordinators brought with them widely differing conceptions of what "community development" meant, and how it was to be implemented.
Interestingly enough, the ex—coordinators are for the most part still to be found working in various parts of the justice system related fields such as recreation, or other governmental positions in British Columbia.
They seem to have made successful transitions to more mainstream bureaucratic roles in the 1980s.
The Role of the Coordinator It is interesting to note that the title "coordinator" was chosen for the front line staff of the Justice Councils Branch. This is a neutral term which certainly does not capture all of the facets of the role to be played. One of the public pamphlets about Justice Councils responds to the question "What is the Role of a Justice Council Regional Co—ordinator?" in this way:
17 "The Regional Co—ordinators are employees of the Attorney- General's Department. It is through the work of the co- ordinators that the çouncils are first proposed to a community. When a council is formed, it is the co—ordinator's job to transmit council suggestions to the Department and to . ensure that local concerns are heard by government. As the exchange of information between councils, regions, and the Provincial Government takes place, the co—ordinators act as community advisors while informing people of government policy and progress. Regional co—ordinators are 'change' agents serving both government and community interests in each of the nine justice regions." (9) Clearly the role of initiator, conduit, information giver, advisor, advocate, and change agent are all referred to in this brief statement. Needless to say, any role that has so many facets, is relatively uncharted, and is played at considerable distance from the home base represents a considerable challenge to the actor. This is also a role set that has plenty of potential for contradiction-and conflict in it for the coordinator. For example, the dilemma of serving the two masters of "community interests" and government is immediately apparent. One would not be very surprised if such roles did not take on a significantly differing style of enactment, depending on the particular skills, philosophy and experience of the coordinator. Such was certainly the case. In a paper on Justice Councils, McComb elaborates on these roles for his coordinating staff: "1. Community Development — has to be able to organize Justice Councils locally and regionally; assisting in the formation of community groups in response to identified needs.
2. Information Dissemination — providing the public with materials, proposed legislation on justice services etc. 3. Public Education — conducting events, special clinics, workshops on justice services. 4. Project Development — consultation with community groups and divisional representatives (from government departments etc.) on proposed programs.
18 5. Response to Issues Identified in Local and Regional Communities - presenting local and regional views to the department (of Attorney- General). Facilitating communication on government policy.
6. Local and Regional Cross System Planning - developing citizen participation in local, regional and provincial planning procedures.
7. Resolving Community Conflict - local problem solving re community issues.
8. Ombudsman and/or Advocacy Role - local investigation of community conflict, individual rights of citizens or professionals. 9. Policy Formulation - the testing of attitude on policy formulation." (24)
The general range of skills of community development were paramount in efiacting the coordinator role. However, other skills come into play, depending on the nature of the community, the interests and activities of local councils, and dependent, too, on the orientation and personal emphasis of the coordinator. There was constant debate amongst the staff about the role. It was certainly not laid down in black and white at the outset. Rather it developed as the process of building councils proceeded. One other aspect of the job that was enunciated is worth noting here.
Like any good community organizers, the staff were expected to "work themselves out a job" by creating self-sustaining, autonomous councils. This goal, which is a part of the credo of many helpers and healers, is easier said than done! 'At any rate, it was definitely a part of the coordinators' agenda.
The Coordinators' Group • Almost all of the coordinators identify their group as a close one, primarily because of their commitment to community participation and their involvement in an exciting new undertaking. In the words of one member, "Everybody was a believer. It was almost like a cult". Working in isolation from each other much of the time, they used the group for
19 support. An esprit de corps still persists amongst many of them them even though they have disbanded. A number of the group still meet occasionally on a social basis, as alumnae. Much of the credit for establishing this team spirit is given to McComb who was committed to an open management style, a stress on full participation, and an emphasis on team spirit. There were some alternate interpretations from some coordinators about the dynamics of the group. (a) That the group was only close because of survival needs, particularly since the coordinators in the different regions were individually isolated and therefore "had" to band together.
(b) That undue competition emerged amongst the members measuring success by the number Of councils developed in their regions. Many of the coordinators remarked both on the positive and the negative sides of this
competitiveness. (c) That although everyone was a believer in community participation, that the degree of commitment to and understanding of what
was being attemped varied considerably. One member suggested that some coordinators were only believers at the level of fervor, without clear understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. When the coordinators met, group interaction, process and participation was used to build team support. Because many of the coordinators were assertive and enterprising individuals by nature, inevitably there were interpersonal and ideological conflicts. McComb's style was to bring conflicts to the floor, and deal with them on a group basis. "The management style I used was wide open in which the staff could get mad, they could get angry; they-could tell me to go to hell if they disagreed with me. That was not a normal style." (McComb interview). Overall, it is clear that there was a high level of commitment to the task which kept this diverse group together. One final comment can be made about this group. They exhibited many
20 of the strengths and weaknesses you would expect of staff involved in a high profile, innovative venture. We have referred to the fact that they worked in physical isolation from one another much of the time. But this was not the only isolation that they felt. Remember that staff were hired outside of the normal personnel process and that they filled roles that
were easily misunderstood and threatening to some people in the justice
field. One of the coordinators' tasks was to create positive communication and collaboration between justice professionals where it may not have previously been found. Their most important job was to create citizen participation in justice issues, which could easily lead to conflict with or criticism of existing structures. The coordinators were creating new roles for themselves, "opening bureaucratic windows", and trying to reform the justice system, — activities, which did not fit the values of some people. It is not hard to see how all these factors could produce social isolation and tension for the person cast in the developer/catalyst role.
How a Council was Formed — Theory and Practice There was a general philosophy that emerged with respect to the development of individual Justice Councils. This philosophy is consistent with a model of what has been called a "locality development" approach to community organization.*(39) From this an ideal approach to the council development process was articulated by McComb and Harcourt, that proposed the following steps: "1. Approach professionals, politicians and active citizens in the community who in turn would approach their own contacts and form a steering committee or a Board of Directors.
*For a discussion of three models of community organization see pp.10-16 in Brian Wharf, (ed.) Community Work in Canada.
21 2. This ad hoc committee would hold meetings to discuss issues in the community and organize, publicize, etc. for a public meeting. 3. Open public meetings might then be held to discuss idea of justice council and presumably elect, appoint, etc. a representative justice council." (20, p.6) One thing is clear. This was not held up for coordinators to follow in developing of councils as a blueprint would be used by a building contractor. The coordinators went out and developed councils in a variety of ways and had their own methods of doing so. There was a great deal of differing opinion in the group as to what the blueprint should look like. With an open approach to management, the whole staff group, debated and struggled to systematize the process they were enacting, though it appears that concensus was not reached. Again, an early pamphlet prepared for public consumption makes the following response to the question, How is a Justice Council Formed? "There are many ways in which a Justice Council can be formed and each council has authority over its own organizational procedures. Development begins when the Regional Coordinator contacts individuals involved with the delivery of justice services in a community. A steering committee is established to determine whether or not it would be a good idea to set up a formal council. Once this decision is made, other members of the community are invited to participate in the council's development." (9) One of the operational principles was that of encouraging maximum self determination for each community in developing and organizing its council. Flexibility was encouraged and tolerated. "...no formal guidelines are set down by the Attorney—General's Department and councils are free to determine the best organizational format for their particular community." (9) Each council tended to develop its own boundaries, its focus and limits of involvement. Its structure was shaped by the characteristics of local community. Here are some examples of ways in which councils were begun:
22 (a) The coordinator met with key professionals he knew in the community and talked with them about their justice concerns, and a council developed around certain issues. Usually a later stage of development was to broaden membership to include citizens, and public meetings and
elections were held. Often in this model, the coordination of justice services was seen as the primary goal, with citizens acting mainly in an advisory capacity.
(b) The coordinator would work with an existing community group such as a Family Court Committee or a voluntary agency board. (Family Court Committees had been in place in some communities for a number of years. They were mandated under The Provincial Court Act, R.S.B.C. Section 4, amended 1981, and consisted of professional, lay people and representatives of municipal government who monitored the activities of the Family Court). Usually the organization would have a connection with the justice system and would broaden its focus to encompass the purposes of a Justice Council. In some communities
there was a good deal of resistance because a Justice Council was seen as an unnecessary duplication of an existing committee. (c) The coordinator would start right at a grass roots level identifying
key lay people in the community and asking them to bring together a
small network of people to discuss justice issues. Usually, a public meeting would be called in the community with the assistance of an initial group of interested people to generate interest in the Justice Council. An issue such as capital punishment, drunk driving, or juvenile crime might rise to the surface naturally as one of concern in a given community. Here the coordinator's key role was animation in the community, raising public awareness of justice issues, opening windows of communication between the Department of the Attorney-
23 General and the community, and inviting citizens to form a Justice Council on an ongoing basis if they wished. Elections were sometimes
held to elect a core Council. • Those coordinators who had a community development background would use that as a strategy for development similar to the McComb model — pulling together existing groups in a community or mobilizing the residents themselves around particular justice issues, — usually "safe" ones at first to establish credibility. In a number of communities the coordinators were able to graft the council functions on to a pre—existing Family Court Committee. Some of the coordinators worked better either with professionals or business people or with general community residents and this too was reflected in the varying composition of the councils. The Lajeunesse report gives many exact examples of the way particular councils were formed, so this case data will not be duplicated here.
(20,pp.13-32 and 63-77) No single, right way emerged, or was possible. Coordinators learned from experience and each other. An impressive number of more than fifty councils were operating at the height of the movement in 1976. Despite the lack of specificity about the process, it is questionable whether a more rigorously systematic procedure would have improved the outcome in terms of the number of councils that arrived on the scene in a relatively short period of time.
The Objectives for Justice Councils There were two pamphlets put out for public information on Justice Councils, which are good sources for reviewing what was intended in creating the councils.(9, 13) The first pamphlet is undated, but was produced early in the Council's development, probably in 1975. The second
24 was published in two editions, the first again undated; the second, which reflects no change in content, came out in 1979.
In the early pamphlet, we find the following clear . statements: "Justice Councils have four basic purposes. They provide people with the opportunity to take part in the planning and operation of justice services. They help to identify needs and to integrate service development between police, legal services, courts, and corrections. They help promote justice—related community programs. Most important, they act as agents for change to improve the level of social justice in your area." (9) The later pamphlet's two editions state:
"Justice Councils were established to improve the justice system through citizen participation, coordination, communication, planning and innovation." (13) In relating these purposes to models of community work it is possible to see themes that flow from different but related approaches for community participation. Rothman, Wharf and others have described models of social planning, locality development and social action, which while sharing some broad objectives for citizen participation, nevertheless operate on different assumptions.(35, 39) The purposes set down for justice councils embrace aspects of all of these models. Clearly citizens were being invited to participate in (a) a social planning process, ("integrate service development", "coordination", "planning and operation of justice services"), (b) improving their local community, ("identify needs", "promote justice- related community programs") and
(c) social action ("act as agents of change", "innovation").
A number of interviewees identified the main themes that underpinned the development of justice councils. One coordinator talked about the "buzz words of the sixties and early seventies in the delivery of human services: innovation, cross system planning, communication, coordination, decentralization, citizen participation". (Cran interview) These themes
25 are prominent in the evolving goal statements for Justice Councils and are noted by other authors as significant conceptual building blocks.(18, 20) Ed Schweitzer, first chairman of the Provincial Association of Justice Councils reminded his audience of the founding principles in an address to the 1978 Symposium held in Kamloops. "In theory and in practice Justice Councils were founded on seven main elements:
1. Citizen Participation — the direct involvement of individuals in the process of government and specifically the justice system.
2. Decentralization — bringing government closer to the people it serves. (A decentralized structure is most suitable for citizen participation.)
3. Communication — bringing together people of different experiences and opinions around issues of topical importance to develop local responses to problems or needs. 4. CoordinatiCn. — uniting the efforts of groups and individuals inside and outside the justice system.
5. Planning — providing the opportunity for local citizens to participate in the planning of justice services in their community. 6. Innovation — conceiving and promoting new programs, policies and approaches to problems. 7. Legislative review — reviewing proposed legislation." (31, p.18) Such wide and far reaching objectives certainly gave councils a lot of scope for involvement and the choice among many paths to follow. This was consistent with a model of local self determination. The strength of these goals is that they did not impose a narrow frame of reference on local councilà. They were free to develop not only their own issues of concern, but also their style of participation. One of the weaknesses, of course, is that local groups can feel uncertainty, lack of clarity as to role, and a dilemma of choice in the face of such wide potential involvement. A pressing problem that emerged for many of the councils was the search for a clear mandate from the government that had set them in motion.
26 clear mandate from the government that had set them in motion.
The Regional Coordinators Look at Goals for the Councils The three major goals for Justice Councils identified by most of the coordinators were: 1. Some form of citizen involvement with . the justice system. Deputy Attorney—General David Vickers called the councils "a window between the community and government". It wasn't one—way glass. Rather it was a way for the citizen to have a view into government and an opportunity for government to see the community's points of view. A coordinator stated:
"Justice Councils were to provide a forum to allow the general public to have input into the policy making of the justice system from the local level". Another said "the purpose of Justice Councils was to open up the justice system to the community; to demythologise it". Justice Councils were a tool of information, involvement, study and action. This does beg the questions, what kind of involvement was envisagéd? How far were the councils to "act as agents for change"? It isn't clear as to the degree it was expected that Councils would be involved in social action issues or whether it was simply hoped that they would become a collaborative resource for the justice system. Some coordinators described their view of a council as a pressure group which went after change in the justice system, for example, by sponsoring public meetings to raise important local issues.
Most coordinators expected that the commnity would get involved with some issues, depending upon the particular Council, but again the level of involvement expected in social action is unclear. Others saw it more
27 appropriate for the Provincial Association of Justice Councils to take this role after it emerged in 1977,rather than individual councils. The perceptions of coordinators, of council members, of government, and of the original architects appears to differ, and this remained a dilemma for the life of the councils. Coordinators also had different perceptions on how community problems could be resolved. For instance, those who encouraged an issue—focussed approach by community members were more likely to expedite a grass roots, social action approach. Other coordinators put more emphasis on a public education approach or a justice program development focus, which clearly call for different strategies. The degree to which a coordinator saw himself or herself as a neutral conduit between the community and the government bureaucracy also affected the involvement of council members. As an administrator in the justice development branch commented, the outcome "depended a lot on as to how the professionals stimulated the process of community involvement". Coordinators were sensitive to the fact that a community could respond to issues which quickly alienated justice professionals and others. One example is of a council that was critical of the numbers of children being held in youth containment, making some of their evidence and criticisms public. This was threatening to pol t i cans , corrections branch administrators and also field probation officers who were recommending containment to the judiciary, without proposing alternatives. This kind of reaction could work against the achievement of other objectives, such as those of opening the system to public scrutiny, and producing better cooperation between the justice system personnel. In such circumstances, it was not necessarily easy for a coordinator to welcome an activist stance by the councils.
28 2. The Coordination of Professionals. One coordinator recalled that this was the primary concept when the Councils were first proposed as regional planning groups to bring justice system professionals together, with citizens entering later in a purely advisory role. In discussing this purpose, other coordinators saw it more in terms of a partnership with the objective "to get local professionals to sit down with local citizens to flesh out local solutions to local problems". Another view was that "professionals in the system were to become a resource to help the lay community become involved in identifying crime problems, setting up preventative programs and local solutions". Here the notion was that professionals were to be the key resource in assisting the community, rather than expecting the energy to arise totally from grass roots citizen involvement.
We have already alluded to the fact that some professionals had a good deal of resistance to the development of Justice Councils, didn't know how to participate in them, or saw them as unnecessary. This could lead to a professional/lay community dichotomy. In the view of some coordinators, when this split occurred it often led to a feeling of resentment by justice professionals that the coordinators over—identified with community. It's not hand to see how one would identify with a local council as a coordinator, and the costs involved in doing so. Even though their role ideally tailed for staff to "serve both community and government interests"
(9) the coordinators had a freedom and innovation in their role that was resented by some.
2. Community Involvement in Justice Related Projects. In talking to participants in the process, and reviewing earlier reports and evaluations, it is evident that a considerable amount of activity in the form of
29 community projects was generated. It was through these tangible activities that other goals of participation, coordination, planning, communication and innovation were implemented.All of the coordinators were able to provide examples of council projects. Rather than attempt to summarize these in the body of the report, the authors have chosen to provide examples in Appendix E. There were other goals that were referred to by some of the coordinators, including the use of councils by governments for feedback on proposed legislation, and acting as a vehicle for information sharing and program promotion with the general public. Since these are adequately discussed in the next section of the report, they will not be dealt with here.
The Purposes of Councils — Members' Points of _—View With more than fifty councils in operation over a huge area territory like British Columbia, it would be surprising to find consensus as to their basic purposes amongst members, especially given the stress on the principles of local autonomy and independence from government for Justice Councils. The council members interviewed tended to be those who had long and inensive involvement with the councils, the majority of them at the Regional Council and Provincial Association level as well as in a local group. As one would expect, these respondents reflect a pretty solid understanding of the basic purposes of justice councils. However, if all council members across B.C. had been surveyed the authors hypothesize that significant measures of dissensus would have been found. Councils attracted people with strong positions on a variety of justice issues, people with particular agendas, pet projects and axes to grind all mixed in with genuine commitment to the strengthening of the
30 quality of justice in British Columbia. Such is always the case in citizen groups, and Justice Councils were no exception.
One of the strong themes of criticism that came from council participants was that there was no clear mandate from government. Undoubtedly this critique meant different things to different people, too.
But to many it reflected a need to have the clearer statements of objectives for the councils, and a better sense of how Justice Councils fit into the picture in relation to government. This was never really resolved for many members.
The authors did survey thirty—seven participants at the final symposium held in Cranbrook in 1981, and one area questioned was that of objectives and purposes of the councils. Caution should be used in generalizing the results, bedeuse of the limited size of the sample, and the fact that the survey was completed at a time when the councils had undergone a series of changes and were in sharp decline. Nevertheless, the results are worth reporting.
The question "what do you think ought to be the functions of Justice Councils?" generated the following responses.
31 Disagree Strongly Agree No Agree Response a) Development of justice related 8% 51% 27% 14% projects
b) Monitoring the justice system 0% 38% 49% 13% C) Improving justice services 3% 43% 43% 11%
d) Raising public awareness of 0% 54% 35% 11% justice issues e) Dealing with citizen complaints 24% 30% 27% 19% of injustice
f) Community education 0% 57% 32% 11% g) Enabling citizen input into the 3% 43% 38% 16% justice system h) Acting as a public relations 19% 13% 46% 22% and communication network for the Ministry of the Attorney- General
i) Holding the justice system 5% 30% 46% 19% accountable to the community
The strongest support for justice council involvement comes in the areas of community education, raising public awareness of justice issues, (highly related categories), and the development of specific justice projects. Most disagreement is found with the role of dealing with actual citizen complaints of injustice, which is akin to an ombudsman. role, verging on direct service to complainants. It is evident that the other area of dissensus relates to the role the Councils should play as
information agents and promoters of government initiatives. One shift that
occurred after 1977 was that Councils were encouraged to play this role, which produced conflict and disagreement as reflected here. Another question which relates to the overall purposes of the councils asked if the respondent's own council focussed on justice issues, social
32 justice issues, or both. This matter of defining the content boundary occupied a good deal of discussion on the agenda of local, regional and provincial association meetings as they debated their purpose and raison d'etre. Was their mandate confirmed to dealing with legal, criminal and civil justice issues, or did it include the much broader area of social justice? As examples, some Councils stayed entirely in the realm of criminal justice by developing programs of diversion for offenders, or concentrating on issues of sentencing and prisons. However, others cut a broader swath by involvement in issues of recreation, meals on wheels, or lobbying for an ombudsman for the Province. These latter issues were often easy for communities to relate to, but more difficult for response by the Attorney-General's department, since they often cut across a number of government ministries. Interestingly, 38% of respondents reported a focus on social justice, 14% on justice and 38% a dual focus. (10% did not respond to this question.)
How Did the Justice Councils Achieve Their Objectives? This review does not claim to be a post hoc evaluation of the success of Justice Councils, nor can it be so. However, at this point is important to try and document from the data at Our disposal, what Justice Councils did in the light of the hopes and objectives held out for them. To do this we return to the main elements of councils spelled out earlier. 1. Citizen Participation - It can hardly be denied that these councils provided an avenue for people to participate in addressing justice issues in a variety of ways. The establishment of 50-60 councils throughout the province means that a significant number of people were involved, simply from a quantitative point of view. Who participated? The mix of lay/professional membership certainly
33 varied a great deal from place to place. In 1976, Lajeunesse reported on a survey of forty—three councils and made rough estimates of the percentage of citizen and professional participation.(20, p. 36) On.a province wide basis she notes an average of 54.4% professional membership. However, this ranges from Burnaby (100% professional) and Vancouver (95% professional) to Nanaimo and Grand Forks (10% professional). Councils in the metropolitan area of Vancouver seemed to be dominated by professionals, perhaps because of the greater difficulty that citizens had in identifying with community in these areas, and because a rich array of other opportunities for participation already existed. However, there is no clear pattern of membership in smaller British Columbia communities, with lay and professional members mixed in varying proportions. Often neighbouring communities show distinctly opposite membership distributions. (E.g. Nanaimo 10% professiona1/90% citizen, Port Alberni 80% professiona1/20% citizen.) A minority of councils established membership proportions constitutionally.
Quality of participation is much more difficult to assess. Councils differed greatly in terms of the frequency, depth and intensity which they grappled with issues, not to mention the approach taken. The range of quality in participation is illustrated in the comments of a regional coordinator who described one council as "nothing more than a mere social club", but another as "sponsoring a family law forum leading to the development of a legal aid clinic and community law office which still exists in the community". Another coordinator described a council as "a platform for a local political candidate" while in another community the council became "an effective tool in community monitoring of the'judicial system through a Court Watch Program". Such are the inevitable strengths and weaknesses with a grass roots approach. The quality and amount of
34 community involvement with the justice system varied by locale, the kind of people involved, the community issues that emerged and the perceived functions of the coordinator. The reader is referred to Appendix E for a sample of Justice Council Projects and Activities.
An important question relates to what the policy makers had in mind and how serious they were when they set the wheels in motion for Justice Councils. While participation was definitely a genuine goal that was highly stressed by staff, no structure was created for formal citizen participation in governmental justice decisions. For example, there were no community seats on the Justice Development Commission; no citizen advisory boards established; no direct path of access to policy makers. It is clear that David Vickers,.other members of the J.D.C. and senior administrators invested a lot of time and effort in visiting all over the province and meeting face to face with councils as they developed. When the government changed in 1975, the new Attorney—General maintained contact with the Provincial Association and visited Symposia, as did his senior lieutenants. At this provincial level, debate and voting on resolutions was used as a way of formalizing and transmitting the views of the members. But beyond this, participation with government see e to be a hit and miss affair, with councils having different degrees of success in being heard, and varying levels of frustration about access to decision makers. Councils had to find their own ways to be heard, with the help of the coordinators and Branch staff.
2. Decentralization — Again, while a strong commitment to this concept originally existed in Victoria, there seems to be no working definition of what it meant for Justice Councils. There was a wish to energize local communities to seek local solutions to particular problems, and a
35 recognition that central policies were not always relevant for far flung regions. However, the Councils were not part of an overall plan to systematically decentralize authority and decision making. The idea for the councils originated from Victoria. One paradox of stimulating the development of local groups is that encouragement information and resources usually are needed in the • central source of power. A move toward decentralization calls for an inevitable, additional central structure to ensure that the process occurs. Interestingly, decentralization did not emerge as a major concern at the local level to
the degree that it was in the central bureaucracy. (20, p. 37)
One could say that localization of interest and involvement in justice was advanced through the councils, but decentralization in the sense of shifts of decision making power to local authorities did not occur. 3. Communication — Three kinds of intended communication are to be found in the original formulations for Justice Councils. (a) public education, (b) a two way communication vehicle with government, (c) acting as a forum for members' concerns at the local level. (20,p.38) How well did councils achieve communication in these areas?
(a) Public Education — Our member survey in 1981 indicated that this was one of two areas that had the highest rating of involvement by councils, together with justice related projects. Fifty—three percent of respondents rated their council as being or having been "heavily involved" in this function and 30% rated it as "somewhat involved". Likewise the majority strongly agreed that "raising public awareness of justice issues" and
"community education" was a prime value of the Justice Council movement in British Columbia. However, few persons interviewed identified a lasting impact of councils or the Provincial Association on the awareness of justice issues of the citizenry of British Columbia through public
36 education. In the words of one respondent, there has "not been a large impact on the community, but a possibility in the minds of some community people that we could bring about change. The community does not trust the system any more than before but has been benefitted by the system eeking its consultation". It is impossible to concretely assess community awareness of justice issues directly attributable to the Councils, particularly given a recent political climate in which public education and involvement is not evident in the justice field. However, public education did play a key role in changes in several areas, for example, in programs to establish and emphasize the importance of crime prevention, and those to raise awareness victims' rights. These themes were an integral part of the education programs of a number of local councils, and were important ones at the provincial symposia of the Association of Justice Councils. McComb thinks that the councils enhanced communication at the local, regional and provincial level. For instance, he recalls that they helped to broaden understanding of juvenile crime in a number of communities, and raised important issues of diversion and mediation. One coordinator provided an example of a council raising community awareness of juvenile crime which ultimately resulted in a reduction of the problem in that community. There is a number of examples of councils that raised public consciousness by running public meetings on issues of pressing interest to their community, which was in part an educational as well as a social action function. At least two councils (Vancouver and Maple Ridge) sponsored community wide justice education events, and there were other educational programs targeted at specific groups. A good example is the one established for the public by the Victoria Council, to demystify the
37 process of being a court witness. (b)Government Communication Forum — There are several examples of the government using councils as a vehicle to communicate with the public at large, notably in developing the Counter Attack program, the Motor Vehicle Task Force and dealing with Doukhobour issues in the Kootenays. The network of Council members proved a useful link for government. But particularly in the Counter Attack situation, several coordinators and councils felt "co—opted" unwittingly. In our survey of members, "Acting as a public relations and communication network for the Ministry of Attorney General" received the lowest rating for a function that councils were or should be involved in. Whether councils were also an effective "two—way street" in terms of communication is questionable. The federal and provincial government did seek councils' reaction to the proposed Young Offenders legislation and the Family and Child Service Act respectively, but despite numerous workshops and briefs which récommended changes there is not much evidence that the legislation was much changed in response to feedback. The provincial government sought responses for its Task Force on Motor Vehicles, as well as involvement of councils in victim assistance programs. It also used Justice Councils to solicit nominations for new community members for the British Columbia Parole Board. It is not known how far it considered responses.
(c) Community Forum — Most councils had a function of discussing members concerns. The member survey showed that in terms of satisfactions the second highest priority was in "meeting people with common interests and concerns". However, "dealing with individual citizen complaints of injustice" was not rated highly as a function councils were or should be involved in. As previously mentioned the content or issues discussed
38 sometimes depended upon the interests of key or dominant council members. It was also possible for a council to become a political platform for a particular member. A member of councils did an effective job of running public meetings to involve the winder community in issues. Indeed, some councils chose a public meeting format as the basis of their own gatherings. There is evidence that some councils did not move beyond the function of being a discussion forum. Usually this meant that the group did not have a sufficient task orientation to warrant its continuation, and a number of councils died for this reason. Another factor that affected the ability of a council to act as an open discussion group was the question of professionals' freedom to share information, given that as civil servants they operated under an oath of confidentiality. The goal of Justice Councils to enhance communication between professional and lay persons was probably inhibited in some cases by this factor. Some professionals were reluctant to express opinions and share information on sensitive matters. (20, p.39)
4. Coordination — There is a good deal of evidence that greater coordination of the various professional components of the justice system flowed out of the Justice Council experiment. Many Regional Coordinators pointed to this as an objective that was most often fulfilled by the Councils. One of the well known problems confronting any large system is that of coordinating and creating communication between its various sub- parts. Also, even in relatively small communities such as those found outside of the metropolitan areas of British Columbia, it is not unusual to find a lack of coordination and collaboration even between various professionals in the same system. Connected to this is the problem of
39 varying status and influence in a hierarchy occupied by different professional groups. In the Ministry of the Attorney General a range of professionals participate including lawyers, policemen, court administrators, social workers, probation officers and so on. Traditionally the law profession dominates such a miriistry, disproportionate to the size of its membership, and lawyers tend to rise and occupy a majority of the upper level management positions, to the detriment of participation by other groups. For example, the influence of police is likely to be significantly less than their quantitative weight in the system.
The development of Councils at local levels provided a new forum in which professionals could participate, and talk to one another about justice system concerns in a different context than work. Interestingly, too, this was sometimes a means for these professionals to have access to upper management in their own system which they did not have on a routine basis. .Not all of the credit for bringing professionals together can go to the Councils themselves. In many cases the coordinator actively pursued this goal as part of the strategy for developing a Council, and continued to stimulate this process in the community long after a Council was established.
In 1978, when the coordinators were moved more squarely into a management role, one of their added responsibilities was to help the development of regional management teams that were to bridge across legal services, courts, police and correctional services. One of the lasting impacts and bi—products of the Justice Council movement was that these teams were put in place as a result of the work of the coordinators; and remained after both the Councils and the coordinators disappeared.
40 Certainly greater effort was made to involve the various sectors of the Ministry during the period that Justice Councils were in place, and
intra—system coordination gained in significance as a departmental priority. We have already documented the varying degrees to which professionals participated in Justice Councils in different lcoales (p.34). In a significant number of projects, professionals and lay persons worked side by side. In many of these instances community projects also served to stimulate cooperation amongst different segments of the Attorney—General's
Ministry. (E.g. Counter Attack projects, educational events.) 5. Planning — Local programs were developed as a planned response by a council to a particular community issue. For instance, some councils saw a
program for impaired drivers as a way of dealing with the community concern about the problem of drunk driving, with deterrent sentences for repeat drunk driving offenders, and high school and public education around drinking and driving as a preventative strategy. (Often an organization such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving would spearhead this.) Ideally such a planned intervention was a goal of councils, but few could attain a totally planned systematic approach with lay, volunteer membership. Although committed, many did not have the expertise for social or program planning, so reliance on the coordinator and other professionals was essential at times.
Centralized government systems such as the Attorney—General's ministry are not ideally suited to local planning of services. Potentially, Justice
Councils could have been used more systematically for local justice planning, as Community Resource Boards were for social services. Many of the councils remained open to an array of issues which arose from the community, which tended to produce a scattered response rather than a planned one. Their loose structure and less specific mandate, as compared
41 to Resource Boards, was not conducive to social planning. Although this function had been envisaged by the original architects, it was not developed in Justice Councils. This may represent a missed opportunity on the part of government for a stronger partnership in a planning process. Again, there was no structure developed by government for the Councils to have regularized planning input. 6. Innovation — An important point is that the councils themselves represented an innovative structure for citizen participation in Canada. They were a radical venture for a justice branch of government to initiate. When one considers the short duration of their existence, their reliance on voluntary human resources, and limited access to funding and manpower, the list of accomplishments and experimental projects is impressive. LaJeunesse described the most innovative aspect of councils as "their ability to circumvent traditional communication structures and have direct access to decision makers". (20, p.43) A good example of this was the Clearwater Council's ability to deal directly with policy makers in stopping the closure of a local prison camp. In the survey of members the item "enabling citizen input into the justice system" got the most "strongly agree" responses in evaluating the worth of the justice council movement. But as we have noted, there was no clear pathway of access from councils to senior government officials or politicans. The lack of a clearly mandated and structured relationship with government meant that access varied widely. Some councils, responding to their coordinator's perception of the role relied on him as the go between, leading to dependency on the staff member. One coordinator describes his role as the "link, not agent or advocate for either government or community, but an intermediary; a supplier of information and a convenor between parts of the
42 system". So the coordinator could carry messages or arrange meetings, and orchestrate access.
Other councils used a more political approach, by demanding contact directly with the Attorney—General. E.g. The Capital Regional Justice Council being at the seat of government in Victoria, approached the
Attorney—General on its own initiative for an interview on the youth containment issue and requested a review committee, which was eventually developed.
According to some coordinators, in certain instances this direct
access threatened the turf of local professionals and elected M.L.A.'s. For some people the social innovation aspects that involved attempts to
influence government usurped the political function. "That's not a role of a government employee, that's a role of a political person, elected official or à political party member", was feedback reported by one coordinator. A judge privately expressed concern that Justice Councils represented "citizen cells that could be manipulated at whim", seeing them not as innovative, but as potential political pawns.
An official, clear definition of routes of access to and from
government at the outset, might have reduced this fear and resistance. The Ministry of the Attorney—General finally sought out information on what the relationship should be between councils in commissioning the Ellis report in 1980. The absolute effectiveness of the different channels of access to senior government and ministers is not possible to determine here. However, the perception of interviewees that there was minimal impact of the Justice Council movement on the British Columbia justice system, (which
is discussed later), may well be indicative of a limited response by government. In the opinion of some coordinators and other interviewees,
43 only lipservice was given to access. One person said, "At first some community professionals and some community members who wanted political access, for example, aldermen, were keen; but that wore off quickly when they saw it was all smoke and no fire". This evaluation may also stem from the fact that there was no established, comprehensive mechanism by which the justice system could receive, evaluate and respond to the feedback from local councils on a consistent basis.
The Practical Problems of Implementing Justice Councils Though the record shows that there was a rapid growth of councils in 1975-76, the actual implementation was not always a smooth process. We have touched on some of the problems faced by Justice Councils already in passing, but it may be helpful to summarize the main ones here. In his interview McComb recalled a number of problems. First, there were differing degrees of readiness in the coordinators to get involved in activating the community; varying levels of skill, experience, commitment, and ability to deal with the role strain and isolation which came with the job. Second, there was the problem 'of the coordinators' identity. What status did they have in the bureaucratic hierarchy? Flow were relationships with other justice professionals to be managed? There were both advantages and disadvantages in occupying a role that was outside the traditional Public Service Commission's catalogue of positions. Third, even though the overall objective was for bottom—up change, the development of Justice Councils began from the top—down. This presented an inherent contradiction which had to be resolved. Fourth, there was organizational resistance and plain lack of understanding of the purposes and philosophy behind Justice Councils in the Attorney—General's department. The professional power base at the local community was also threatened. For instance, if the Justice
44 Councils were seen as having direct access to the upper reaches of the Ministery of the Attorney—General and by—passing the normal administrative channels, other ministry professionals could get .upset. Professionals who were more policy bound were often resentful of the coordinators' freewheeling freedom in dealing with a comminity and their limited bureaucratic restrictions. Fifth, although it was not widespread, there was resistance to the development of a new structure in some communities. This was seen as competition with existing structures such as Community
Resource Boards, Family Court Committees, and other municipal committees. In one community in particular there was a strong reaction against what was seized uPon as "imposed citizen participation" in a Justice Council. In others, councils were not seen to have a legitimate function, or were a threat to local politicians. Those representing the status quo in many communities questioned the purpose of getting involved saying "we're too remote, too small to have an impact on Victoria", and could not accept that they could have the access that was proferred. Lastly, McComb identified his own style of management as a possible contributory problem. There was discomfort and lack of understanding in his own bureaucracy with his participatory and democratic management style.
In addition, problems were mentioned by other of our interviewees from varying vantage points. Despite the many strengths of volunteerism, there were the inevitable limitations faced by all organizations that rely on volunteers. Some Justice Councils were dominated by single issue people, which could hinder recruitment of others. In some small communities recruiting effective lay leaders was a difficult problem for coordinators since a small core of active leadership is likely to be busy and already committed in other organizations. For some communities the Justice Council structure was illusory. It offered great expectations, and a community
45 might build hopes that it could be a rich source of money for new commmity projects. But when the smoke cleared and it became clear that this was not its function, community energy sometimes ebbed. Justice Councils offered promise to some quick new avenues of political access. When this did not magically appear some moved on, disappointed. Some councils
couldn't identify issues on which to focus meetings and did not continue meeting.
Justice Coordinators had several communities in each region, each with differing preferences for a style of council. This called for great flexibility on the part of the coordinator, and an ability to assess the community's needs for more or less structure. Some people wanted more stucture, a crisp mandate, more clarity, and felt that the vagueness of focus dissipated too much of their energy in the search for definition. Others liked a loose style which gave them flexibility and freedom to move, and saw this as an essential strength of the grass roots Council movement.
It was hard to adjust to different needs like these, though a skilfull, patient coordinator could use the community development process effectively to this end. A major barrier to overcome was that each Council had to define its own agenda for action. Was it going to deal with individual citizen concerns or more general public justice issues? Was its arena to be legal and criminal justice, civil justice or the much broader one of social justice issues? This problem of focus for Justice Councils proved to be tricky, led to indecision, and was the subject of many a discussion at local, regional and Provincial Association meetings. The process of getting started and establishing a council's credibility and legitimacy was often difficult. For any innovative
46 community structure there is an absence of history and tradition on which to rely. In the case of Justice Councils this was compounded by the fact that they did not fit into the structure of a government department, had no decision making authority at the local level, and had not been established in legislation, but by policy. On the other hand some people were afraid that "another level of bureaucracy"was being laid on.
Such a list of obstacles appears rather forbidding. To those who have experience with innovation in traditional settings some of them will have the familiar ring of the normal resistances to change that are usually found, while some are peculiar to the British Columbia justice scenario in the 1970's.
Changes in Government Justice Councils Relationship, 1975-1979 Despite the wish to create Justice Councils with a high level of autonomy, and independence from government, nevertheless this relationship remained a crucial factor in the brief history of the councils. After all, the Councils were designed to assist in the important functions of planning, coordination, innovation and legislative review. Thus they could not exist in a vacuum, but had to have an interdependence with government if they were to succeed. It is important then, to look at the changes that occurred in the relationship, especially since in the eyes of many of our respondents it played a major role in the ultimate demise of the councils. The changes will be discussed under the headings: (a) Political, (b) Change in Administrative Structure and Support, (c) Change in Role of Coordinator, (d) A Thorn in the Side? (a) Political
The election of December 11, 1975 saw a Social Credit majority government returned to power in British Columbia, with William Bennett, son
47 of the former premier at its head. Thus came to an abrupt end the three year interregnum of the N.D.P. It is important to note that the Justice Council Branch was still in its infancy, a mere eighteen mbnths old at this point. One might expect, given the political polarity of the two parties, that Justice Councils would be targeted for extinction. However, support was not to be immediately withdrawn, as it was for Community Resource Boards, (for further discussion of this see pp.64-66) where local authority had been legislated for control of social services. There are different explanations for why this was so. In assuming responsibility for his ministry the new Attorney—General,
Garde Gardom (1975-79) had some familiarity with the concept of the councils, having been a justice critic in opposition. As he notes, he inherited a large ministry, larger than it is currently because it then
• included Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which has since become a separate ministry. In any event, Justice Councils was not a high priority for action amongst an array of responsibilities including courts, corrections, police, liquor distribution and so on. The Attorney—General's recollection of the intended functions of the Councils focussed on two aspects. (a) to serve as a vehicle to familiarize the community with the justice system, — an educational one and (b) a coordinating aspect, emphasizing on the justice system as a whole, rather than just its component parts. The position of the new minister was that "if there was a need to be fulfilled and they (Justice Councils) had the capacity to fulfill it, I was totally supportive .. If there was not a need to be fulfilled then I wouldn't be supportive." (Gardom interview). It appears that even if his government might not be expected to be highly supportive of citizen councils, the Attorney—General was prepared to see if the Councils could demonstrate effectiveness in some areas. It is
48 noted, however, that his perception of the councils focussed more on them as an educational/coordinating arm of the government in the community, than as a self determining community group. This was demonstrated in the expectations that were placed on some councils to act initially as
"lightning rod" (community energizer) and later as a community coordinating and educative vehicle in support of the government's Counter—attack program against drinking and driving. In the Attorney—General's assessment the actual outcome was that the
Justice Councils "withered on the vine" as time went on. Many of the ex- coordinators hold to the view that this became the strategy of the
Attorney—General and his senior policy makers. One coordinator said "Social Credit policy was not to support grass roots projects as such but a more centralized form of government". Another coordinator suggests a different interpretation, — that the decline was due "less to the reaction of the politicans and more to the reaction of senior administrators who were trying to interpret the agendas of the politicians as non—supportive". So one of the questions that can be raised at the political level is whether the initial decline of councils was an intentional move on behalf of the government or was it simply too occupied by other business? Apart from the changing emphasis in function for the Council, there is little evidence to suggest a lack of government support during the first two years under Social Credit government. The period of 1975-1977 was actually one of continued growth for the Councils, even if Justice Councils were not at the centre of attention of the new government's agenda. However, in light of later developments discussed below, this perception of active neglect takes on greater credibility. A further interpretation is that the real support only came from the
49 Justice Development Commission and from Director McComb, not from a widespread base in government. When the original members of the Commission and eventually McComb were moved out, the support for Justice Councils collapsed, as they were replaced by managers who did not have the same level Of commitment or understanding of what was being attempted.
(b) Change in Administrative Structure and Support
A development which had had an impact even before the election of 1975 was the emergence of Treasury Board fiscal restraint, which was being felt at the Branch level. This was not felt directly by the councils since they did not depend on funding, but it contributed to staff discomfort with shifts in focus and which in some cases took the form of paranoia about "government pulling the plug". Naturally there were alterations in personal and administration of the Department of the Attorney—General after the change of government and these impacted upon Justice Councils at the local level. In 1976 and 1977 some of the original senior members of the J.D.C. left, including John Brewin
(1976) and David Vickers (1977) who was replaced as deputy Attorney—General by Richard Vogel. These men had been strong supporters of the Councils and had a considerable amount of face to face contact with the grass roots membership. A new assistant deputy minister, Mark Krasnick, became executive director of the J.D.C., and Vogel assumed the chair. By 1976 the Justice Development Commission began to shrink in significance as the policy making flagship of the department. Its functions were reduced to those of grant funding and acting as a small research centre. McComb now reported to the executive committee of the department. It seems clear that support was greatly lessened for the original concept of Justice Councils as vehicles of citizen involvement and input.
In 1977 the name was changed from Justice Council to Justice
50 Coordination Branch This signalled a shift in focus that was in line with the philosophy and priorities of the government of the day. The emphasis became less on creating a window and opening the boundaries of the department. Rather the theme of internal coordination of the various parts of the justice system became more important, which was one of the original foci of the councils, but now assumed a higher priority. (c) Change in Role of Coordinator After the initial phase in which the Justice Councils Branch was established and the bulk of the local Councils were developed, a shift in focus occurred which placed more emphasis on the coordinators becoming regional coordinators for government. This produced a definite change in role emphasis for regional coordinators who by 1976 were called Regional
Justice Coordinators. Their allegiance was seen as much more rooted in the government that employed them, rather than with the communities in which the Councils existed. One of the chief responsibilities now seen for the coordinators was that of as coordinators, links and liaison people between the various parts of the bureaucracy in the field. This resulted in role conflict and became more and more accentuated as the function of coordinator continued to change from being a community developer with a mandate to free—wheel and act as a community advocate, to that of justice coordinator with a responsibility serving regional management committees and for bringing together the different components of the justice system, (1977) and finally becoming a managers in the Attorney
General's Ministry, with decisions to make about allocations of resources and so on. (1978) Coordinators talked about feeling caught in the conflict between being an agent of government or facilitator and advocate for the community. Coordinators were "marginal men caught between a system that no longer gave the support required to make their job meaningful and the
51 no longer gave the support required to make their job meaningful and the community who looked on the justice coordinators as outcasts, no longer supporting them in what they were trying to accomplish in their own community". Since there had never been a high level of clarity between councils and government about their relationships with each other, this too
led to further confusion embodied in the role of the coordinator. When the coordinators moved into the role of managing the funding of special projects, their credibility with councils was compromised and contaminated, and the role shift difficult to comprehend. Coordinators were unable to articulate very clearly what the funding priorities were, since control was maintained by head office administration. This centralized pattern of funding and decision making resulted in much waiting in limbo and decisions about project funding without reasons given. Justice Councils had originally been established as one way of overcoming these frustrating processes and this return of the turn of the wheel compounded the Councils' frustration. This co—ôptation has been clearly described by several coordinators who talk about being required to act as public relations men for ministers visiting local communities or using the Justice Councils to deliver Counter—attack programs from the top down. This was seen as in direct contradiction to the grass roots intention of involving the community on its own terms through Justice Councils. One coordinator argues that his colleagues as a group should have taken a strong stance against this "bastardization of their role." For example, he felt that they should only have cooperated with Counter—attack development when their communities wanted it, and not tried to organize a Counter—attack committee in every community at the direction of the government. Thus, many of the coordinators felt that their role shift encouraged the Councils take on the
52 agenda of the government. The new administration under the Social Credit government substituted the original trust in community involvement with an emphasis on accountability and a different kind of citizen input. Senior administrators found it hard to understand the frustration of coordinators over their changing role with Counter—attack, or at being used for getting information for the Motor Vehicle Task Force, or at moving into a role of regional management. One coordinator estimates that through role shifts the administration eventually reduced their time for working with Councils from from one hundred to ten per cent. (d) A Thorn in the Side?
Some interviewees suggested that the change in government signalled a reduced tolerance level for vocal activist councils. Attorney—General
Gardom stressed that there was no political stifling of councils, stating
"everyone has the right of freedom of speech". Another respondent indicated that "some councils that made a lot of noise about irrelevant stuff without doing anything productive were seen as simply critical of government policy, and presumably an irritant to the government". However, the record shows that important questioning of contentious issues of government policy was done by some Councils, e.g. the compulsory heroin treatment program, the debate about the establishment of an ombudsman and the issue of containment of juveniles. A Victoria Times front page headline proclaiming "Chaos in the Justice System!" (38) by a Justice Council aroused a natural defensive reaction from the Attorney General's Ministry. Issues of political interference in the courts raised by a council in Grand Forks, brought a political response. (37)
It is an interesting question to speculate whether the criticisms from some councils contributed to their ultimate demise. While both governments
53 were threatened by citizen critiques, this tended to be seen as a less credible and necessary function by the Social Credit administration. The Councils were after all a creation of an N.D.P. government that could hardly complain if they did what was expected of them. Besides, even under the former N.D.P. government we have noted that channels of communication were not very well delineated from the grass roots to the seats of power, so it should not be surprising if Councils resorted to the public Media to get their message across. Nor was this access resolved after 1975, because as time wore on more emphasis was placed on communication flowing clearly from government to the community so that new programs and policies could be understood and interpreted. So, it became more difficult for councils to send messages back and reach the government with their issues. Some councils tried to communicate directly with the Attorney—General, but with only limited success. After 1977, the Provincial Association was not the strong central voice for the local Councils that some had hoped for, for a variety of reasons. In summary, it seems that only a minority of councils were actively critical of government, on a relatively small number of issues. The authors and those interviewed did not identify this as a major factor downfall, even if they were sometimes an irritant to politicians of bureaucrats.
The Decline of Justice Councils
In 1976, Lajeuenesse reported 52 councils in existence. The 1978
Directory of Legal Services listed 42, and in 1980 the Ellis Report showed 36 active. The period of rapid decline was in the early 1980's. By the time the authors began interviewing in 1984, only a couple of councils were identified, and these have since disbanded.
54 A combination of factors accounted for the disappearance of the Councils from the scene. This section of the report will explore some important . events that occurred and significant factors identified by the respondents, including the dismantling of the Justice Coordination Branch in 1980, the removal of the regional justice coordinators, the shift of
McComb to another role, and the disbanding of the Provincial Association of Justice Councils.
Since we have not dealt in detail with the emergence of the Provincial Association we will deal with this first.
The Provincial Association (1977-1981) Coordinators were originally responsible for developing local councils in the nine justice regions which covered the province. A second objective was to encourage the formation of regional councils, and a number of these emerged in the Northern, Interior, Kootenay, Vancouver Island and Fraser
Valley regions. Serious considefation later turned to forming a Provincial
Council, through a 1977 symposium workshop and a resolution debated and passed in plenary session. (30, pp.48-50) This action was given momentum and was "to a large extent the result of a working paper developed in the
Capital Region by Mr. Fred McLellan who expressed the need for a clearing house for greater coordination in the efforts to communicate with the federal, provincial and municipal governments".(31, p.18) The Provincial Association of Justice Councils was established as a result of this action and had its inaugural meeting early in 1978. The Provincial Council comprised one representative from each of the nine regions, elected by local councils. Its major purposes, as identified in the constitution were:
1. Establish an effective body for the promotion and preservation of a public voice in the administration of justice.
55 2. To advance the cause of justice and to represent the public interest in its administration both provincially and federally. 3. To recommend changes in provincial and federal laws for the improvement of the justice system on the basis of its own initiative and on the basis of the initiative of concerns raised by local Justice Councils. 4. To promote the means by which Justice Councils throughout the province can arrive at a common position to influence legislation and decisions which will improve the justice system. 5. To gather and facilitate the exchange of information among the individual Justice Councils, the Association and similar organizations throughout Canada. 6. To encourage Justice Councils to assist in the formation of other Justice Councils in their immediate area. 7. To improve the level of social justice on a province wide basis.(31, p.19) Respondents involved in the Provincial Association confirmed that, it was formed because it was thought that local councils needed provincial coordination and support; there were issues that they shared in common; and a united voice was needed for presenting concerns to the different levels of government with greater impact. But there was certainly not total agreement amongst the councils as to whether a Provincial Council was the answer. Opposing arguments included the fear that such an association and structure .would bdreaucratize Justice Councils. However, a majority of members agreed that they had to have more impact upon government through a representative Provincial voice. Although its purposes were clear from the constitution, its legitimacy in the eyes of the provincial government was not. The Association took overall responsibility of sponsorship for the symposium after 1977, with local committees handling •organizational details. It tried to use the provincial symposium as an annual forum for enunciating a united,position to present to government. At the final symposium held in Cranbrook when the
56 authors surveyed attending Justice Council members, there were widely varying opinions as to the Association's importance. 16% respondents felt that its existence was extremely important, 19% of considerable importance,
27% saw it as having only average importance, 19% of little significance, and 8% stated it was not important at all. (11% did not respond to this question). It is interesting to note that it was not disagreement over role or function of the association, inadequate leadership or lack of member council participation that were seen as the major problems facing the
Association. Rather, it was the lack of staff support, lack of funding, lack of government support and the time and geographical constraints which received the strongest ratings as dilemmas. There is some discrepancy between the evaluation of the Association by the justice coordinators and by the people involved in the Association's activities. For instance, one coordinator commented " it had no role except administering funds or putting on provincial education forums. It never achieved a separate representative role with government". Another said, "it wasn't needed, the coordinators could have remained the information link between the regions". However, one of the Association's executive said "I think the primary object was to bring together public opinion on a particular issue and be the conduit in feeding that through into proposed legislation, and I think it fulfilled that role to a large extent". This person commented "the symposia were really a good experience. The federal government funded a lot of that, I think it was funds well spent and time to learn for everybody. I think the province may still be benefitting and is in fact benefitting." However, these and other members saw some serious limitations in the functioning of the Association. It had little money, but simply had to request funds from federal and provincial governments to put on the annual
57 symposium. There was not much financial support for travel or contact. For administrative support it relied heavily upon the coordinators whose
positions were terminated in 1980. The Association was coffiprised purely of volunteers who were also involved in councils at the local and regional level. Obviously there were limitations upon the time of the volunteers.
The Association just could not fill the shoes of the coordinators when they left although some local councils hoped that this void could be filled in this way. One member thinks it might have worked and continued as a
coordinating body if there had been a full time paid chairperson or executive director of the Association who could travel the regions. It
survived for as long as it did on the energy and commitment of its leadership (Schweitzer and O'Gorman) and its members, on the support from various levels of the community, and with encouragement from the Justice
Coordination Branch.
In 1981, the association sponsored the creation of a training package on community development and membership recruitment, together with self-
evaluation for the councils. (26) In the process of developing this it was confirmed that the disintegration of the councils had gone too far for this to be of any real use. (O'Gorman interview)
The Association's relationship to government also presented some a crucial problem. One executive member comments
"I think the management/ministry had a focus or a vision that did not include the justice council movement. I think it was a top level decision to eliminate the Justice Councils. It may have been that politicians were experiencing some hate as a result of the councils, or they just could not identify with what was happening. I don't know the motivation, but I know it became pretty clear to me and obviously to the Association, that every time we were about to do something there were people who were ignoring us. There was also the funding that would be promised and not there, and often we were asked to take pretty big risks with funding because people could not make decisions on whether we should or should not have funding".
58 From 1979 to 1981 the chairman of the Association did visit the new Attorney-General, Alan Williams, on a regular basis to keep him informed, and noted that the minister made time for their meetings. With hindsight, one respondent wondered whether this may have been a mistake since it heightened the Attorney-General's awareness of the Association's difficult situation. He promised two years of funding for the Association to prove itself as a truly viable community group. According to this executive member, by the time of this opportunity for some relief there was too much disintegration in the Council movement. It needed too much energy to revive. The new Attorney-General did not see the symposia as worthy of support The Councils felt that regeneration and exchange through these meetings was essential. Federal government departments of Justice and the Solicitor General gave some money for symposia. This was not done without fear that the provincial government would call the tune on the focus for the symposia agendas to emphasize programs such as counter attack and crime prevention, rather than leaving them in the hands of the Councils.
In his 1980 report to the ministry J. Ellis also identified some of the problems of the Association. 1. Confusion over its role with the Ministry of Attorney-General. 2. Changes in and eventual disintegration of the Justice Coordination Branch (which had been the staff support systems for the Justice Councils).
3. Ministry staff were unable to support the concept of "community involvement" in the Justice System. 4. A lack of strong central leadership and organizational structure within the Association. (Ellis report, p.19, p.8) The reluctance of government to commit financial and moral support to the Association undoubtedly relates to of these underlying problems. Ellis recommended that to improve the relationship between the Association and the Ministry of Attorney-General, there should be a negotiated arrangement
59 between the two parties as to the nature of that relationship, including regular meetings with the Minister and ministry officials; the appointment of a full time ministry person to work with the Association; the provision of local administrative support from ministry offices for Justice Councils, and the continued provision of financial assistance to the Association. Ellis saw that the Association could play a useful role with the ministry by helping to introduce proposed legislation and new programs, such as the crime prevention program; could help to evaluate local acceptance of ministry services and programs: or plan workshops in which ministry staff and community come together. Finally, the Association could continue to sponsor the annual Justice Council Symposium, which Ellis described as a unique invent in B.C. in that "a large number, 200, ministry and community people come together to discuss provincial justice concerns in an open forum".(19, p.11) In summary, Ellis' evaluation was that the B.C.A.J.C. could be a useful public relations and collaborative vehicle for the ministry. It is interesting to speculate, why, with such recommendations for a positive role between the ministry and the Association, that government support was not continued. The Association reluctantly decided to disband in 1981. The factors that had affected the local councils and contributed to their decline were also instrumental in the demise of the provincial association.
The Removal of the Justice Coordinators The coordinators were originally hired by the Justice Development Commission on direct contract to the Justice Councils Branch. However by April 1975 the coordinators became part of the established civil service which certainly increased their visibility within the government heirarchy.
60 The changes in the role of the justice coordinators in 1977 and 1978 have
been noted, as they moved into positions related to regional management, and less directly concerned with the Councils. The actual decision to terminate the Justice Coordination Branch was made in January 1980, by the Assistant Deputy Minister Mark Krasnick. Prior to this decision the
writing was on the wall as to the imminence of the decision with the departure, in September 1979, of Don McComb from the directorship of the Branch to a special assignment with the Ministry of the Attorney—General on crime prevention.
As far back as October 1978, Ed Schweitzer, the Chairman of the B.C.A.J.C. stated in an address to the Kamloops symposium that "the Justice Coordination Branch has indicated that government has decided to have the Branch progressively withdraw its strong influence on council activities during the next two years. It is thought that the councils have matured well and that they will continue to mature sufficiently to allow for fuller sense of independence by the end of two years. It is also thought that other professionals in the justice system will begin to have a greater sense of involvement with councils and in some cases have a stronger support role than the Justice Coordinators." (31 ,p.20) In the climate of energy and excitement in a successful symposium and with the emergence of a new Provincial Association, the optimism of the chairperson was quite understandable. However, several commentators indicated that this withdrawal of the tangible support through coordinators by the government marked the beginning of the end for Justice Councils. Perhaps, as some have mentioned, there was too much Council dependency upon themselves unwittingly created by the coordinators. This can easily happen despite the wish of a community developer to empower citizens and to quickly become superfluous. In interviewing the staff we were not aware of an overall game plan to phase out the coordinators over a specific period of time, and Councils were not led to expect this. After all, the
61 coordinators were the on—site conduit to and from the department, through which information flowed. For many councils they were the only link to government. One Association executive member thinks that this dependency was inevitable, since most councils perceived the coordinator as their link with the government. It is very difficult for citizens to function as participants in a complex and technical area of justice without relying on a source of accurate information. Councils were not necessarily clear that they were to act independently and establish other avenues of access with government. So, when over a period of two years, the government shifted the role of coordinators into a department management function with less and less responsibility for direct work with councils, most community groups were left high and dry without a strategy for survival. Many of the councils began to collapse during this period.
Many of the Councils had also relied on their original core members for leadership and the staff member for support. Many had not planned for the recruitment of new talent or developed blue prints for a new era. his 1978 address Schweitzer said, "it is the determination of the Branch to work closely with the Association, developing training facilities for volunteers throughout the province. It is thought that the development in community leaders (including professionals) fortified with skills to work with the community, requires teamwork approach and a willingness to risk or even abandon turf and territory. The Association of Justice Councils has begun negotiations with various levels of government in an effort to develop these training facilities." (31 p.21). In reality, the plan to train volunteers and use professionals in this way did not emerge. Apart from a belated training package of 1981, there is little evidence that such a plan was attempted to fill the holes left by coordinators. In the 1981 survey, only 11% of council members felt the impact of the loss of coordinator on their council was not significant, while 43% saw it
62 as extremely significant. In a similar vein when asked to assess the seriousness of problems facing their councils, respondents rated "lack of staff support" as the most serious one.
Other Factors
There are some other important factors affecting the demise of councils which were commented on by various respondents. The key reason given by most coordinators for the decline of councils was "political", though opinions on this varied with the political perspectives of the respondents. The respondents who were supportive of the NDP government felt that the councils were allowed to wither by the
Social Credit Successors because they were seen as groups which could criticize government. Some suggested it was the intent of the new government, especially the politicians, to ignore or starve the councils to death; to let them die through neglect rather than take the drastic political step of disbanding them. As one coordinator said "community input and decentralization is a difficult model for most politicans to deal with; central government is a much safer model to work with. The political climate was totally against the concept of decentralization and the notion of participatory democracy, as opposed to representative democracy. Councils were perceived as getting in the way of the normal decision making processes".
A few other respondents were more philosophical "The Social Credit government. —. systematically pulled the rug from under us in a lot of areas, but I can understand why. When you look back at it today, it's amazing how far we've come since then in fighting. —. This economy is so tough. I think we were fortunate to have this experience really because today we couldn't have it".
63 Others stated that whenever any government invites community input it must expect it to be critical, irrespective of the government's political philosophy. Many in the bureaucracy also found the concept of citizen input difficult to handle, and civil servants did not know what to do with it. Professional branches of the Attorney General's ministry had difficulty understanding, or were resentful of Justice Coordination Branch. Many did not support it, though it is questionable whether administrators made deliberate moves to undermine it. The Councils themselves had a hard time justifying their role with senior bureaucrats. McComb argues that the early image of Justice Councils labelled them detrimentally. They tried to do too much in a short time and also they lacked focus and clear expectations. "How can you focus a province on one issue?" The Councils also milled around for a long time before they got into specific action. It was not quickly clear what their purpose was to many observers both in the community and in the bureaucracy. The looseness of structure was a difficult quality to grasp for the new administration that followed on from the original Justice Development Commission. Understandably, government finds predictability of structure and process easier to deal with than variation and individuality of organization and purpose.
Comparison with Community Resource Boards* Community Resource Boards were also spawned in a climate of community participation during the brief era of the NDP government in B.C. However,
*For a detailed discussion of the Community Resource Boards see M. dague, R. Dill, R. Seebaran and B. Wharf, Reforming Human Services: The Community Resource Board Experience in B.C, Vancouver, U.B.C. Press, 1984.
64 they were dismantled through repeal of their sanctioning legislation shortly after the Social Credit government regained power, as had been promised in the election campaign. Why did Justice Councils survive for five or six years longer? The differences are worth noting.
(a) Community Resource Boards were established with legislative legitimacy. Justice Councils were not. This had both positive and negative connotations for the councils. It meant that it was not a simple matter for the new government to eliminate them by repealing a law. The fact that they were formed through voluntary citizen involvement, in one sense, gave government less than full control over their existence. While they were dependent upon ministry staff for support, they had no elected or paid members who could be terminated.
On the negative side, as already noted, because of their voluntary nature it was more difficult for the councils to establish their credibility, for the community to really understand their roles, and for a legitimacy of function to be established. (b) Community Resource Boards had a fixed structure. They were elected by the community at large, funded and were involved directly in the delivery of a wide range of social services. Justice Councils were self—selected, did not make any funding decisions, nor did they carry responsibilities or for the delivery of justice services. Coodinators indicated that some councils deliberately avoided formalities such as elections. The hope was that they would succeed on their own merits, without undue formal structure.
(c) Community Resource Boards were supported right from the top with the direct involvement of the N.D.P. Human Resources minister, Norman Levy. The Attorney —General really had little input or involvement in the
65 development of Justice Councils. They were developed by the Justice
Development Commission and supported at that level. Community Resource Boards had a cabinet sanction, a high public profile and dealt with key issues of management, personnel, and service delivery in the social services. Justice Councils had a narrower and lower public profile. Because of this they simply did not attract as much attention from the new government. One Council member aptly summarized the difference by saying
"they had to starve the Justice Councils out whereas the Community Resource Boards you could kill with a stroke of a pen". Interestingly enough there was mixed opinion amongst the respondents as to which model was preferable, in retrospect. Many people remained committed to the voluntary, citizen basis for involvement despite its weaknesses and vulnerability.
Lessons Learned
This final section will summarize some of the lessons learned from the
Justice Council experience, drawing on both the observations of the interviewees and the analyses of the authors. It is easy to have 20/20 vision in hindsight, and to be critical of efforts at innovation, especially when one is writing from the comfort of a desk chair rather than dealing with the harsh realities of bringing about change in real human situations, with all of the potential pitfalls! It is also important to remember that this report does not claim to be, indeed cannot be seen as an evaluation of the Justice Council experience. It is indeed unfortunate that a formal evaluation was not built into the program, because this would have been of great benefit. But such was not the case. Having said that these are some questions that come to the fore as we reviewed the listing of the Councils.
66 1. A question can be raised as to the inherent contradiction and difficulty in building a grass roots citizen involvement from the top down. The idea for Justice Councils originated with a new government and a program was developed to involve people at the community level. There is no doubt that the staff were successful in building Councils. However, the nature of the relationship between the parent government and its offspring remained a troublesome issue during their existence.
2. A related point is the difficulty of creating independence and autonomy from government in Councils. This is a commendable objective, but one wonders how feasible it was in this situation. As it turned out the Councils needed the regional coordinators as links to government, and felt the loss seriously when they were removed. This is hardly surprising. If citizens are to participate in the complex and technical field of justice and have an impact on a bureaucracy as complicated as a large government Ministry, then they are clearly reliant on a pipeline that gives them adequate information, and reliable routes by which their input can be received. So while it is valid to seek after autonomy of opinion for councils, this does not mean that they can be expected to survive without clear connections to the Ministry to which they are relating.
3. In creating a means for citizen participation it is important for government to be sure about its reasons for doing so. It is not clear that either government really understood the model that was used to develop
Councils, and the rationale that lay behind it. From our vantage point, as well as from that of many of the participants, it seems as if not enough clarity existed in the Council's mandate from government. How much legitimacy did they have to act, once created? Would this legitimacy have been strengthened and clarified through legislation? Some people see this as important in retrospect. Others do not. But most agree that the
67 essential mandate of the Councils needed to be clearer, and that both Councils and government have benefited from a clearer set of expectations.
4. Some observers noted that the objectives for Justice Councils were painted with a broad brush. Undoubtedly, this was done to create wide opportunity for the Councils to involve themselves, without constriction.
However, this may have contributed to expectations for the Councils that were inflated, and which led to an inevitable let down when the realities of change and dealing with a complex bureaucracy were experienced first hand. Objectives that were more tightly drawn, more focussed and realistic could have been helpful to Councils in finding their way. 5. It is clear that the Councils needed better, more predictable ways of getting Information to and from government. The coordinators undertook their role seriously in this respect, but alternate means appeared to be necessary. Government could have created means by which input from the
Councils could be heard through representatives. (E.g. advisory bodies, seats on policy making groups, specified decentralization of some decision making with citizen participation.) A lot of energy was expended in creating councils, on the assumption that they would find ways to have their input and influence the system. It is hard enough to produce change from inside a system, let alone from outside, in a volunteer role. Involvement in the policy making process in the Attorney—General's Ministry would have given the Councils a greater sense of participation in 'the venture.
6. Had there been alternate structures for Councils' input, the regional goordinators could have been used in a development role only, and phased out when this was completed. By becoming a part of the justice bureaucracy it was inevitable that the coordinators' role would change vis a vis the
68 Councils. A time limited involvement could have offset the institutionalization of this role, and the difficulty the Councils had with the changing roles and ultimate loss of their staff. 7. There is a good deal of evidence that many professionals in the justice bureaucracy did not understand the rationale or purpose for Justice Councils. To some professionals in the field they were an unnecessary component, or even a threat. To many central bureaucrats it was an appendage that was not understood, and therefore never really utilized given the press of running the ministry on a day to day basis. It is all too easy for bureaucracies to conclude that citizen input is irrelevant, or too difficult to incorporate into a complex system. It seems evident that greater effort.was needed to bring the members of the bureaucracy on board in this venture, if public participation was deemed important by government. 8. Greater effort was needed from the outset to develop education and training for volunteer leadership in the Justice Council movement. This need was identified at the mid—point of the Council's life, and even planned for at a later stage, but it should have been an integral part of the program from the outset. •
Closing Comments
We have attempted to document the major developments surrounding the rise and fall of Justice Councils in British Columbia. This was a unique experiment to gain the participation of citizens in advancing the cause of justice. In an increasingly complex and bureaucratic world it is all too difficult for theoperson on the street to have a say about policies, programs and laws that shape soclety. Too often this is the exclusive jurisdiction of the elected representative and the "servants of the public"
69 who staff ministries. Experts in planning, policy making and research are clearly important. But the immensity of the problems facing contemporary society demand that the community have its say too. Justice Councils emerged from the belief that citi. zens can and should participate as partners in the justice enterprise. They were developed by leaders in government and staff who were committed to this notion. A significant number of British Columbians invested volunteer time and energy
in their local Councils. Although the movement was shortlived, it demonstrated that given an opportunity, citizens care about the quality of justice in their communities. Governments will continue to face the serious dilemma of how to genuinely engage in partnerships with the citizenry. Perhaps from this experience enough has been learned so that other approaches will be attempted.
70 APPENDIX A A Justice Councils Chronology
August 1972 N.D.P. government elected in British Columbia.
December 1972 Task Force on Correctional Services and Facilities established, chaired by M. Matheson. February 1973 Task Force recommends establishment of Master Planning Council for the criminal justice system. Became Justice Coordinating Council, chaired by M. Matheson. September 1973 Matheson recommends in a policy paper to cabinet that a series of regional councils of professionals be • estabished for justice planning. April 1, 1974 Province takes over administration of the courts from municipalities. April , 1974 Administration of Justice Act passed, creating the Justice Development Commission with a budget of $1.5 million for 1974-75. Deputy Attorney—General D. Vickers chairs J.D.C. which has authority for
a) Coordinating the planning of the total justice system b) Encouraging and financing reserch into any aspect of the justice system c) Establishing and coordinating experimental projects and programs April 15, 1974 D.R. McComb hired by J.D.C. to fill newly created position of Director of Justice Councils. June 1974 Justice Council Branch formed by J.D.C.
July 1974 Draft goal statements developed for Branch. Late Spring and Incumbent Director acquaints himself with Victoria and Sumner 1974 travels the province to pass on ideas about Justice Councils.
August 1974 Community Development Model formulated for establishing Councils. Decision made to develop councils at a local level. September 1974 9 Justice Council regions created, each to have a staff coordinator. December 1974 Full slate of regional coordinators in place.
71 April 1, 1975 Relationship between Justice Council Branch and J.D.C. changed. Staff shifted to civil service status. Director reports to Executive Director of J.D.C. rather than to Deputy Minister.
By Fall 1975 About 15 Justice Councils formed, and coordinators had tapped into about twenty more existing groups.
December 11, 1975 Social Credit majority government elected.
By December 1975 53 Justice Councils organized and . Regional Councils established. Latter comprised of chairpersons of local Justice Councils and key members. (Kootenay, Northern, Okanagan, and Vancouver Island regions)
March 1976 Delisle and Lajeunesse Reports completed on Justice Councils for Attorney—General's department.
September 1976 First formal Provincial meeting of Justice Council members sponsored by Attorney—General, to discuss theme of diversion of offenders.
October 1976 Seed funding from Solicitor General of Canada te provide $400 to each Justice Council to a maximum of $20,000, for one year.
November 1976 1st Justice Council Symposium, Cranbrook.
1977 Justice Councils Branch renamed Justice Coordination Branch.
November 1977 2nd Justice Council Symposium, Victoria. Resolution passed to establish B.C. Association of Justice Councils — a provincial council.
March 1978 B.C.A.J.C. formed.
May 1978 Justice Council Branch assigned responsibility for administering the Justice Development Fund.
October 1978 3rd Justice Council Symposium, Kamloops.
September 1979 Canning Report completed for B.C.A.J.C.
October 1979 4th Justice Council Symposium, Richmond.
December 1979 Decision to terminate Justice Coordination Branch.
March 1980 36 Justice Councils in province.Internal Ellis Report prepared on the B.C.A.J.C.
June 1981 5th Justice Council Symposium, Cranbrook.
June 1981 D.R. McComb resigns.
72 November 15, 1981 B.C.A.J.C. disbands.
By 1984 Two Justice Councils remain active in B.C.
Present (1986) No Justice Councils active. APPENDIX B Interview Questionnaire
Identifying Data on Respondent 1. How were you involved with Jugtice Councils? 2. For how long were you involved?
Historical 3. Where did the main ideas/concepts for Justice Council come from? 4. Who were the major architects? 5. What was the sequence of events that led to the development of Justice Councils? 6. What were the major functions/purposes envisaged for Justice Councils? 7. How would you compare Justice Councils with Community Resource Boards?
Administration/Implementation 8. How was the administration of Justice Councils set up by government? 9. What was the overall strategy for developing Justice Councils at the local level? What models were used? 10. How were the Councils funded? 11. What were the major problems in implementing Justice Councils at both the government and the local level? 12. How did local Councils relate to the ministry? 13. What functions did they actually fulfill? 14. What is your evaluation of the role played by the Provincial Association of Justice Councils? 15. What do you see as the major changes in the relationship between government and the Justice Councils over time? 16. How would you describe the current status of Justice Councils?
74 Outcomes 17. In your opinion, what has been the impact of Justice Councils on the justice system of British Columbia?
18. What do you think are the major lessons to be learned from Justice Councils?
19. What does the future hold for Justice Councils?
20. If you had the chance to start Justice Councils all over again, what would you do differently?
75 APPENDIX C List of Interviewees for Justice Councils Research Project
Politicians:
Alex Macdonald, N.D.P., Attorney—General, 1972-1975 Garde Gardom, Social Credit, Attorney—General, 1975-1979
Senior Administrators:
David Vickers, Deputy Attorney—General, 1973-1977 Mark Krasnick, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Attorney- General, 1976-1980 John Brewin, Deputy Chairman, Justice Development Commission, 1974— 1976 John Ekstedt, Member, Justice Development Commission, 1974-1979 John Hogarth, Member, Justice Development Commission, 1974-1978 Malcom Matheson, Member, Justice Development Commission, 1974-1977
Justice Council Staff
Victoria: Don McComb, Director, 1974-1981 Mike Harcourt, Assistant Director, 1974-1976 Rita Darling, Secretary to Director, 1975-1981 Regional Coordinators:
Bob Aldcorn, Northern Regional Coordinator, 1977-1979 Norman Brown, South Fraser District Coordinator then Northeast South Fraser Regional Coordinator, 1977-1980 Greg Cran, Chairman, Grand Forks Justice Council, 1975-1978, Kootenays Regional Coordinator, 1978-1980 Jim Ellis, Chairman, Prince George Justice Council, 1975-1977, Northern District Coordinator, 1977-1978, Interior Regional Coordinator, 1978-1981
76 Larry Gobie, Vancouver Island Regional Coordinator, 1974-1976, Vancouver Regional Coordinator, 1976-1979 Gary Hoskins, Vancouver Island Regional Coordiantor, 1978-1980 Jim Majcher, Kootenays Regional Coordinator, 1974-1978 Bill Mercer, Interior Regional Coordiantor, 1975-1979
Frank Mullally, Northeast Fraser Regional Coordinator, 1974-1976 David Smith, Northern Regional Coordinator, 1974-1977 Maureen Sanderson, South Fraser Regional Coordinator, 1974-1976
Roland Steida, Chairman, Kamloops Justice Council, 1975-1977, Northern Regional Coordinator 1978-1980
Justice Council Members:
Pat Barron, Chairman, Nanaimo Justice Council Austen Howard—Gibbon, Chairman, Prince George Justice Council Chairman, Northern Regional Council, Prince George Member, British Columbia Association of Justice Councils Barbara McClintock, Secretary, Capital Region Justice Council Llona O'Gorman, Capital Region Justice Council, Second Chairperson, British Columbia Association of Justice Councils Larry Pearson, Chairman, Vernon Justice Council Member, Okanagan Regional Council Member, British Columbia Association of Justice Councils John Post, Capital Region Justice Council
Ed Schweitzer, Kelowna Justice Council, Chairman, Okanagan Regional Council First Chairperson, British Columbia Association of Justice Councils Bob Sheffield, Cranbrook Justice Council Chairman, Kootenay Regional Council Treasurer, British Columbia Association of Justice Councils
77 APPENDIX D Justice Councils in British Columbia
Region 1 — Vancouver Island Region 5 — Interior 1 Campbell River 30 Alexis Creek 2 Capital Region (Victoria) 31 Clearwater 3 Comox Valley 32 Kamloops 4 Duncan 33 Lilloet 5 Nanaimo 34 Lytton 6 North Island 35 Merritt 7 Port Alberni 36 Williams Lake
Region 2 — Vancouver Region 5 — Okanagan
9 Cedar Cottage/Kensington 37 Kelowna 10 Frog Hollow 38 Oliver 11 North Shore 39 Osoyoos 12 Renfrew/Collingwood 40 Penticton 13 Sechelt 41 Revelstoke 14 Squamish 42 Salmon Arm 15 Vancouver 43 Vernon 16 West Vancouver
.1z_ 78 Region 7 — Northern (Prince Rupert) 59 Hazleton 60 Kitmat 61 Masset 62 Prince Rupert 63 Smithers 64 Terrace N.B The data for this listing was accumulated from a number of sources including the Lajeunesse Report (20) and the Justice Council Symposium Reports of 1977, (30) and 1978 (31). Not all of these councils were necessarily active at the same time, so this represents the most complete cumulative listing that the authors could gather for the report. It includes Justice Councils that were started from scratch, as well as those that were grafted onto existing Family Court Committees or committees of Community Resource Boards. 79 APPENDIX E Examples of Justice Councils Activities Following is a sample of activities of a number of Justice Councils, undertaken at different times from 1975-1980. This is not intended to be an inclusive listing. Capital Region District Council — An educational program to demystify the process of being a court witness. Cedar Cottage/Kensington — involvement in diversion programs Clearwater — ran a public meeting and halted the closure 6f a local Provincial forestry camp for inmates. Comox Valley & Fort St. John — ran a workshop on the proposed federal Young Offender's Legislation. Cranbrook initiated a legal clinic. District 43 — involvement in a Coquitlam project to train released inmates as log scalers. Fort St. James — prepared brief to Alcohol and Drug Commission seeking a counsellor, which was funded. Grand Forks — established a Court Watch Program to monitor the local courts. Kamloops — mobilized intially around cattle rustling issue. Co—sponsored a Forum on the Role and Responsibility of Judges. Maple Ridge — mounted a community Family Law Carnival. Nelson — report prepared on impaired drivers. North Island — development of an impaired drivers program. Prince George — developed an educational package on shoplifting, which was taken to local schools. Prince Rupert — arranged a community fair, "You and the Law" Revelstoke — a study of the impact of dam construction in the area, and developed an impaired drivers' program. 80 Salmon Arm — sub—committee prepared brief for Legal Services Commission requesting a native courtworker. Smithers developed a training program for volunteer family counsellors. Vancouver — co—hosted a weekend "Justice Meet" with a series of presentations for public education. Vanderhoof brief to Attorney—General requesting a court clerk for the area. Vernon — organized an Okanagan regional conference to discuss Berger Commission recommendations and Federal juvenile legislation. . West Vancouver — developed a school justice education program. White Rock — prepared briefs in response to planned closure of the local court. Williams Lake — sought paralegal — human rights officer for community. 81 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. British Columbia, Administration of Justice Act, 1974. 2. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Annual Report, 1974, Victoria, B.C. 3. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Annual Report, 1975, Victoria, B.C. 4. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Justice Development Commission, "Regional Councils Goal Statements, Rough Draft", Memorandum (internal), June 12, 1974. 5 , British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Justice Development Commission, "Justice Councils Goal Statements, Rough Draft #2," Memorandum (internal), July 3, 1974. 6. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Justice Development Commission, "Justice Councils Goal Statements, Rough Draft #3," Memorandum (internal), July 22, 1974. 7. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Justice Development Commission, "Justice Councils Goal Statements, Draft", Memorandum (internal), March 21, 1975. 8. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General, Report of the Task Force on Correctional Services and Facilities, Victoria, »P.:Mary 28, 1973. 9. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General,"What is the Justice Council?" Undated pamphlet. 10. British Columbia, Department of the Attorney—General,"What is the Justice Development Commission?" Undated pamphlet. 11. British Columbia, Ministry of the Attorney—General, Annual Report, 1976, Victoria, B.C. 12. British Columbia, Ministry of Attorney—General, Annual Report, 1977, Victoria, B.C. 13. British Columbia, Ministry of Attorney—General, "Justice Councils," pamphlet, Queen's Printer, Victoria, 1979. 14. Canning, Patricia. The Justice Council Movement: A Review. for B.C. Association of Justice Councils, September 1979 (unpublished). 15. dague, M., R. Dill, R. Seebaran, and B. Wharf, Reforming Human Services: The Community Resource Board Experience in B.C., Vancouver, U.B.C. Press, 1984. 16. Contract between the British Columbia Department of the Attorney- General and the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, 82 17. Cooper, Terry L., "Citizen Participation: From Political Response to Administrative Initiative," The Bureaucrat, Winter 1979-80, pp. 40-49. 18. Delisle, A.O. An Organizational Study of the Justice Councils Branch. Department of the Attorney—General, -Tictoria, B.C., March 1976. 19. Ellis, James P. A Report on the British Columbia Association of Justice Councils. Ministry of Attorney—General, March 1980. (unpublished) 20. Lajeunesse, Therese. Justice Councils: A Study, Department of the Attorney—General, Victoria, B.C., March 1976. 21. Lajeunesse, Therese. Justice Councils: A Summary Report, Department the of Attorney—General, Victoria, B.C., March 1976. 22. Lovelace, Christopher. "Justice Development Commission: The Development of the Policy Process," A paper written by a Public Administration Intern for the Planning and Administrative Units of the J.D.C., July 21, 1975, (unpublished). 23. McComb, D.R. "Community Involvement in Pro—Active Policing", a paper presented to the Police Educators Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, May 16-19, 1977 (unpublished). 24. McComb, D.R. "Justice Councils in British Columbia", a paper presented to the Canadian Congress of Criminology and Corrections, Calgary, Alberta, July 3-6, 1977 (unpublished). 25. McComb, D.R. and Harcourt, M. "Justice Development Commission — Justice Councils", August 1974, (unpublished). 26. McMullen, Lorie. A consultant report on the B.C. Association of Justice Councils, April 15, 1981 (unpublished). 27. Morley, J. Terence. "The Justice Development Commission: overcoming bureaucratic resistance to innovative policy—making", Canadian Public Administration, Vol.19, No. 1, Spring 1976, pp. 121-139. 28. "Opening Up B.C.'s Justice System", Liaison Vol.1, No.11, December 1975 — January 1976, pp.1-4. 29. Proceedings, 1st Justice Councils Conference, "Community Involvement in Justice", Cranbrook, B.C. November 27-29, 1976. 30. Proc,e_ed.inasi 2nd Annyal Symposium of Justice Councils, "Bringing JusticeBack Into the community", Victoria, B.C., November 4-6, 1977. " 31. Proceedings, 3rd Annual4Symposium of Justice Councils, "Community Just'fce Exchange"; B.C. Association of Justice Councils, Kamloops, B.C., OctolDer 20-22, 1978. 83 SOL.GEN CANADA LB BL II II0000013117 1111111111 11 32, Proceedings, 4th Annual Symposium of Justice Councils, "Encounters of the Justice Kind", B.C. Association of Justice Councils, Richmond, B.C., October 19-21, 1979. 33. Proceedings, 5th Symposium of Justice Councils, "Community Crime Prevention, A Strategy for the 80s", F.J. Cran and J. Zirk (eds.), B.C. Association of Justice Councils, Cranbrook, B.C., June 5-7, 1981. 34. Process, Vol.1, No.5, 1975. • ublished by the Justice Development Commission, Department of the Attorney—General, British Columbia. (Issue devoted to Justice Councils). 35. Rothman, Jack, "Three Models 6f Community Organization Practice", in F. Cox et al. Strategies of Commun ity Organization, Peacock Press, Itasca, Illinois, 1970. 36. Starrs, Cathy with special assistance from Louise Beaulieu. The Communitu the Criminal Justice System and Their Roles — Some Piéiiminary Considerations. A Report to --t-Sè Department of the General, April 1977 (unpublished). Solicitor 37. Vancouver Sun, March 24, 1980, p.B10. 38. Victoria Times, April 10, 1980, p.1. 39. Wharf, Brian (cd.) Community Work in Canada, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1979. V Vf. LIBRARY MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA umuuTeouE MINISTÈRE DU soLticiTeun GÉNÉRAL DU CANADA OTT.WeA. ONTARIO 84 ll Cr8 ---- '"----- -,--j nn-te-111- DATE DUE , OU NOV 1 KEB Cosscm, John. 532 The rise and fall of C6 justice councils in 1986 British Columbia. c.2 I