Review of “The Needs of Victims of Institutional Child Abuse” Institute for Human Resource Development (IHRD) This paper was prepared for the Law Commission of Canada. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. The accuracy of the information contained in the paper is the sole responsibility of the authors. Ce document est également disponible en français sous le titre Étude des besoins des victimes de sévices en établissement. Final Report Review of “The Needs of Victims of Institutional Abuse” October 16, 1998 Submitted to: Law Commission of Canada (LCC) Submitted by: Institute for Human Resource Development (IHRD) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Rick Morris, Project Manager, Institute for Human Resource Development, wishes to thank the following individuals for their important contribution to this project. The Law Commission of Canada staff were very helpful in this project.. Susan Zimmerman, the Director of Research, and Susan Alter, researcher, provided considerable assistance in accessing contacts and information, as well as advice and encouragement on overall direction of the project. IHRD contracted with several professionals in the completion of this project. Colleen Hanrahan, of the Institute for the Advancement of Public Policy, was instrumental as a senior researcher, as was Anne Morris, who also completed the Mt. Cashel survivor interviews. Our list of consultants/interviewers includes Pat Duggan (Nova Scotia); Adje van de Sande (Quebec); Deborah Leach and Associates (Ontario); and Peter Calder (Alberta). A notable job was done by all, especially in light of tight time lines. Much appreciation is offered to the people who acted as “ friendly sources” and key contacts for the various sites. These include: Bruno Roy (Quebec); Dr. Elsie Blake (Nova Scotia); J. J. Byrne (Newfoundland); Daintre Norman (Ontario); Dick Sobsey (Alberta). The Law Commission’s Study Panel assisted the consultant through its critique of our work and in assisting us in identifying key contacts. We appreciate the many key informants who gave freely of their time and knowledge, often going beyond our expectations in their eagerness to address the issues. Finally, we wish to express our deepest thanks to those survivors of institutional abuse who participated in our project. Their general wish was that their involvement would make it less likely that other children would be subjected to the abuse they suffered. We certainly share that wish, and hope this document contributes in that direction. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................... 1 3.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .................................................................................. 2 4.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Study Panel............................................................................................... 3 4.2 Literature Review....................................................................................... 4 4.3 Selection of Institutions.............................................................................. 4 4.4 Identifying / Accessing Survivors ............................................................... 7 4.5 Identification and Preparation of Interviewers............................................ 8 4.6 Interviewers and Survivors......................................................................... 8 4.7 Interviews with Other Informants ............................................................... 9 4.8 Reports ...................................................................................................... 9 5.0 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Legal Processes...................................................................................... 12 5.2 Support Systems ..................................................................................... 39 5.3 Prevention / Early Intervention................................................................. 45 5.4 Suggestions for Improvement.................................................................. 46 5.5 Other Issues............................................................................................ 50 6.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 53 6.1 Needs of Survivors of Institutional Abuse ................................................ 54 6.2 Role of Survivors in the Legal Process.................................................... 55 6.3 Best Practices / Alternative Approaches.................................................. 55 6.4 Government’s Role.................................................................................. 63 6.5 The Role of Society ................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX ONE ........................................................................................................... 67 APPENDIX TWO ........................................................................................................ 107 APPENDIX THREE..................................................................................................... 143 APPENDIX FOUR....................................................................................................... 159 APPENDIX FIVE ......................................................................................................... 183 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document represents the final report of the “ Review of the Needs of Victims of Institutional Abuse”. The review is being conducted for the Law Commission of Canada (LCC), by the Institute for Human Resource Development (IHRD), a private consulting firm based in St. John’s, Newfoundland. IHRD’s technical team in completing this review included: Rick Morris, project manager; Rick Browning , senior advisor; Colleen Hanrahan of the Institute for Public Policy, senior consultant; Anne Morris, senior consultant; Mike Eagen, methodology consultant; Patricia Duggan, interviewer/ consultant (Nova Scotia); Adje van de Sande, interviewer / consultant (Quebec); Deborah Leach and Associates, interviewers / consultants (Ontario); Dick Sobsey and Peter Calder, interviewers / consultants (Alberta). This report is organized into six sections: an introduction; study objectives; research questions; methodology; findings, and; conclusions. Individual reports on the primary institutions are included in appendices, as are two literature reviews, one on institutional abuse and another on foster care. 2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES The study objectives are as follows: 1. To identify the nature and extent of institutional child abuse in Canada. 2. To gather information pertaining to the experiences with and opinions of victims of institutional abuse, and other relevant informants, about the redress options. 3. To identify the range of and rationale for the legal options implemented in Canada for victims of institutional child abuse, and their integration with other responses (e.g. support programs, compensation programs). 4. To examine the effectiveness of the redress options in addressing individual needs and desired outcomes of victims of institutional child abuse. 5. To identify fundamental principles, policies and programs for ensuring the prevention, early intervention, and optimal response to the impacts of institutional abuse on victims. Institute for Human Resource Development Page 1 3.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS For each objective of the study, we identified research questions which guided the consultant’s activity. These include: 1. Nature and Extent of the Problem (addressed in literature review) • How do we define ‘institution’ and ‘abuse’? • What is the incidence of institutional child abuse in Canada? • What institutions has abuse occurred within? • Why were children placed in institutions? • What were the rationales for institutional care of children? • What role do institutions play in the care of children in Canada today? • What causes institutional child abuse? • How does it remain secret for, in some instances, decades? • What is the impact on families, the community, and society at large? • What are the needs of survivors? 2. Experiences and Opinions of Survivors and Other Informants(literature review, interviews with survivors and knowledgeable others) • What abuse was suffered by survivors of institutional child abuse? • How did it become known in the first instance? • What was the response of authorities at that time? Over time? • What was the survivors’ experience with redress options ( criminal court, civil suits, apologies, ADR, support programs)? • How well were their needs accommodated and interests represented? Were there gaps? • What do survivors need to assist them as adults in addressing the impacts of institutional child abuse? • What implications are there in the administration of justice for the addressing of the needs and interests of survivors? 3. Range and Rationale (literature / document review, interviews with survivors and knowledgeable others) • What redress options have been chosen in this country to deal with instances of institutional child abuse? • Who selects the options? • Who has input? Page 2 Institute