YOUTH CRIME: BROADENING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM
| Back to Table of Contents |
According to the 1994 statistics reported by the Department of Justice, youth crime consists primarily of property offences which constitute 58% of all charges. Most of these involve theft or break and enter charges. Violent crime represented only 18% of all crime, the majority of these offences involving minor assaults. In comparing these statistics to previous years we see that the number of young people charged by police has decreased for the third straight year, largely due to fewer charges for property crimes. Violent crime rates have decreased slightly, signifying a levelling off trend after the increases reported since 1986.
Youth homicide charges have increased in terms of their proportion of all homicide charges, from 6% of all accused persons in 1993, and 9% in 1992, to 11% in 1994. However, the youth homicide rate has fluctuated greatly over the last ten years making it difficult to establish a trend. At any rate it averaged 8% over the past decade. However, as Doob et al. point out, the lowest numbers of homicides ever recorded for youth were in 1987 and 1993, at 35, which compares to a high in 1975 of 68.1 Thus, although homicides committed by youth currently make up a slightly greater proportion of all such crimes, the most recently reported actual numbers of offences are substantially lower than those of the 70's.
Moreover, compared to adult offenders, young offenders are significantly less likely to perpetrate violence against others. This is encouraging given that the overall crime rates have decreased this year more than ever before in the period in which the Department of Justice has collected statistics. In fact, 1994 showed the lowest overall homicide rate recorded in 20 years.2
As these data either are consistent with or show decreases over the rates of recent years, the present characterization of youth crime by writers in the areas of social policy, criminology and social science research continues to be of value to those seeking to understand the issue. Most or all researchers in these areas characterize youth crime as predominantly property related, with only a small minority of young people showing serious, violent or persistent patterns of offending.3 As Clark and O'Reilly-Fleming report, offences by children under 12 years of age, which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the YOA, show an even smaller percentage of violent crime. The majority of their offences constitute quite minor property crime or mischief.4
While some researchers have concluded that there has been a slight increase in violent crime by juveniles and that a small number of young people are being brought to court for increasingly violent and serious offences, other writers caution that the reported increase in violent crime in previous years is more reflective of changes in community tolerance of violent behaviour. Community members are much more willing than before to involve the justice system in relatively minor incidents.5 An example of this change is the zero tolerance policy of the Ontario Ministry of Education which directs principals to lay charges in any act involving violence.6 The greater tendency to charge young people no doubt accounts for a large proportion of the increase in minor assault charges. This in turn represents the bulk of the increase in violent crime and may explain why the rate has levelled off this year.
As Doob et al. explain, all researchers would agree that violent crime is not "the staple of youth crime", nor is it "out of control" or "running rampant".7 It is possible that a small number of youth are coming to court for more serious violent crimes. However, as the Prevention and Children Committee of the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) reports, persistent and serious young offenders represent a very small proportion, at approximately 7%, of all youth charged. This is not to say that these young people are not worthy of our concern. After all, they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of youth crime. However, the vast majority of offences by young people are still committed by the remaining offenders, those who do not show a serious or persistent offending pattern.8
The Public's (Mis)Perception of the Problem
| Back to Table of Contents |
The small group of serious offenders has drawn a lot of public attention in recent years. The focus by the media on violent crimes committed by teens, the stances taken by police and teachers unions calling for more support in dealing with violent teens, and the coverage of violence by adolescents in the US, who commit far more crimes than Canadian youth, have created a perception on the part of the public that youth crime is out of control and that our streets and homes are increasingly unsafe.9 The NCPC reports that while the crime rate is decreasing, half of the population believes that it is on the rise.10 Similar reactions are recorded for youth crime, which many believe is also increasing despite recent and consistent evidence to the contrary.11 This phenomenon has been recognized by the Justice Committee chaired by Dr. Bob Horner in 1993.12
Begin describes how this "chasm" between the reported crime rates for youth and the public perception of the problem has resulted in increased fear on the part of Canadians. This fear has translated into pressure on the government to take harsher measures to deal with young offenders, particularly through amending the YOA.13 Bala surmises that this public "hostility towards the YOA is part of a broader 'anti-Ottawa' mood in Canada, and for that matter, part of anti-youth sentiment" or-even potentially anti-minority youth.14
Besides being based on misperceived rates of youth crime, public pressure has grown from perceived inadequacies in the YOA, perceptions which are based on incomplete and inaccurate information.15 Such misperceptions have been documented in a study undertaken in Alberta and Manitoba by Baron and Hartnagel (reported in Doob et al.) where the majority of respondents supported using adult court for juveniles. They also believed youth court dispositions to be much more lenient than they actually are in practice. Doob et al. hold that if the public had more information about sentencing and the types of crime that youth are committing, they would respond differently. This belief is supported by the above study's findings that the majority of respondents doubted that sending youth to jail would prevent future offending and supported the goal of rehabilitation for young people.16
We have demonstrated that the public's perception of the rate and type of youth crime is inaccurate. Reliable statistics show that the youth crime rate is either stable or decreasing and that a very small number of young offenders commit serious or violent crimes. Also, very few become persistent offenders. While we are all horrified by brutal, violent acts by young people, or by adults for that matter, they are not indicative of the general nature of youth crime. We also recognize the need to protect society from the acts of persistent, violent young offenders. However, policy that is based solely on their situation will necessarily be ill-founded and ineffective in addressing the general problem.
The Federal Government's Own Response: "Toughening Up" the YOA
| Back to Table of Contents |
Unfortunately, the Federal Government's most recent policy action appears to be based on a perception similar to that of the public. Their priority in addressing the problem of youth crime was the passing of the amendments to the YOA in Bill C-37, amendments which, in the main, constitute harsher measures for dealing with serious, persistent offenders. Such measures include: presumptive transfers to adult court for 16 and 17 year olds accused of violent crimes, increases in maximum sentences for murder, the obligation to keep youth court records for at least 10 years if the youth re-offends, the loosening of restrictions on the admissibility of a young person's admission of guilt to police, and the ordering of medical and psychological evaluations for repeat offenders or serious offences.17
Certain amendments, such as that allowing for the sharing of information among service providers and the requirement that custodial sentences be both justified and reserved for serious offences, do represent a step toward a more rehabilitative approach. Both Batshaw Youth and Family Centres and Calgary Social Services consultants applauded the sharing of information amendment as potentially resolving many problems associated with the enforcement of court ordered conditions. Careful sharing of appropriate information between social and court workers and school personnel is key to consistent encouragement and monitoring when, for example, a probation condition involves regular school attendance.18 However, there are problems related to these two developments. Sharing of information about the young person's court record, if not carefully implemented, can result in young offenders being kept out of schools or being stigmatized in the community, as one consultant from Ontario reports. Such a result can work against a rehabilitative orientation where no other options or services are made available to the young person or his or her family. Consultants also pointed to a serious problem with the second amendment mentioned above, one which relates to the lack of funding available at the provincial level for more community-based facilities. This severely limits the rehabilitative potential of the amendment.
On the whole, Bill C-37's amendments amount to a corrections focused and individualized response, with decreased room for family or community-based measures. In some provinces even harsher measures are being called for. Certain political leaders have recently advocated a return the death penalty for both youth and adults who are convicted of murder. The CWLC is obviously opposed to such a measure. We also find these statements particularly distressing and unhelpful given the role of such officials in public leadership on the issue of youth crime. As the Honourable Allan Rock explained to this Committee in June of 1994, Bill C-37 was created in response to public pressure to toughen up the legislation.19 This pressure we have demonstrated to be based on misperceptions and misinformation. Politicians must begin to concentrate their efforts on correcting these misperceptions and allaying the public's fear rather than encouraging theses responses.
An Inadequate Federal Response: The Problem Lies Outside the YOA
| Back to Table of Contents |
The Federal government's approach is surprising given past statements regarding federal policy directions on youth crime. In a paper distributed to participants for the 1993 National Symposium on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, the Department of justice stated that in the upcoming review of the YOA, the "primary emphasis is on more effective responses rather than on harsher or tougher ones", an approach which they stated was in keeping with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Canada became a signatory in 1991.20
Also, as Dr. Irvin Waller, Executive Director of the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime and consultant on this brief, commented at a conference this spring, the Horner Report recently "proposed a federal role in crime prevention, including a national policy, a national council, (and) funding " among other measures. Waller further explained that the key elements of these proposals formed the Liberal Party of Canada's platform on crime prevention for the 1993 election.21 Begin reports that the Liberal election platform specifically on the YOA included expanding access to treatment and rehabilitation programs, a promise that was echoed by other parties to the election.22
Moreover, as Waller stated, additional resources were not used in the way the Parliamentary Committee proposed, which resulted in the closing of many programs which served to reduce youth crime.23 Also, as the NCPC pointed out in their "Brief to the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Development on Social Security Reform", the previous government's limits on transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan to BC, Alberta and Ontario as well as those slated for the remaining provinces by 1996, will result in a further reduction of much needed support services for youth and families in their provinces. The Council recommends that such cuts be rethought and that a fair and adequate system of federal transfers to provinces be instituted.24
Neil Deringer and his colleagues at Calgary Social Services, a CWLC member and consultant on this brief, expressed a view echoed by other members across Canada in their assertion that:
We are not alone in this view. The NCPC also "questions the wisdom of proceeding with legislative amendments to the Young Offenders Act before undertaking the broader review of the Act and implementation issues."26 As they have identified, the problems are not with the legislation but relate to its implementation, in particular with respect to resources for community-based alternatives to custody and much needed support services for young people, their families, schools and communities. Leschied and Gendreau, clinicians and researchers who work with this population, also signal, "an absence of support from the traditional sources of high quality rehabilitation services, such as education, work skills training, and counselling in the youth justice system."27
In fact, the Honourable Warren Allmand, chair of this Committee, also in addressing conference participants, stated that "except for the provisions relating to the distribution of information, and the provisions on non- custodial dispositions, the YOA was perfectly fine. The problem was with the administration of the Act, the political will to put into place rehabilitation, diversion, and non-custodial programs. Changing the text will not change anything."28
In recent years, the application of the YOA in most provinces has been characterized by greater emphasis on correctional measures and punitive responses. This is likely due in part to the push by the public to get tougher on young offenders, but is also an outcome of decreased federal funding for provincially mandated social services. As custodial dispositions are mandated under the federal legislation of the YOA, the federal government is required to transfer adequate funding for them. In the absence of appropriate rehabilitative and community-based responses, provinces are forced to rely on those measures which are securely funded. However, these responses cost much more than rehabilitative and community-based measures. The net result is an increased fiscal burden which then further cuts into those funds that can be transferred to provinces for social services, for much needed support for young people, their schools, communities and families. The funding issue becomes a never-ending cycle of spiralling costs for responses which are ineffective in preventing youth crime. The following discussion of both the recent correctional trend and the costs it entails supports and elaborates this conclusion.
The move to a more punitive, correctional response in applying the YOA can be seen in a number of areas. As Doob et al. report, in many, but not all provinces, we have seen a dramatic increase in both the number and proportion of custodial dispositions. Quebec is the exception, in that the high proportion of cases coming to court resulting in custody has remained stable. However, this is likely due to the fact that Quebec brings very few and only the most serious cases to youth court. On average one out of 86 of Quebec's population aged 12 to 1 7 end up in youth court compared to the national average of one in 33 and Ontario's figure of one in 27. Even if one averages the total number of cases, we see a lower number in Quebec as a proportion of all youth, at 57, compared to the national average of one in 20.29 For every person who goes to youth court in Quebec, two more will be dealt with by either youth protection (child welfare) or young offenders services, such as alternative measures.30 Including the youth protection clients, who manifest behaviour problems which do not constitute criminal offences, we have reached a rate of one on 28 youth, close to the national average for only young offender populations. Quebec thus manages to keep much higher numbers of young people out of the youth court system without showing higher rates of youth criminality over the other provinces.
Quebec is indeed the exception. Judge Herbert Allard, Alberta Senior Provincial Court judge and consultant on this brief, reports from the perspective of one with 37 years of experience on the Bench, that in his province they are ordering secure custody for two to three times the number of youth than they did ten years ago and that at least one quarter of YOA dispositions involve custody. In addition, youth often spend more time in custody than an adult would for the same offence as there are no provisions for parole under the YOA.31
Another indication of a trend of more correctional responses to youth crime is a marked decrease in police diversion. As reported in Carrington and Moyer's article "Trends in Youth Crime and Police Response Pre- and Post- YOA", police are less and less likely to respond to a young offender by taking him or her home and talking to the parents, a common practice under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.32 Moreover, the NCPC reports that the charge rate for youth is higher and has increased faster than that for adults in recent years. Not only are youth being diverted from the justice system less than before, they are diverted less than adults.33
Related to the diversion issue is the implementation of alternative measures programs. Although many service providers and researchers in the area advocate increased use of alternative measures under the YOA and all provinces and territories are now finally offering alternative measures programs, access to such programs varies widely across provinces and jurisdictions. Also, what constitutes an alternative measure will vary. For example, under the Quebec program alternate measures include not only community work, and service to the victim, but involvement by the youth in programming aimed at improving his or her social skills.34
In the implementation of alternative measures one must of course ensure that they do not result in eliciting false admissions of guilt, excessive measures given the nature of the youth and the offence ("overkill"), and even extremely harsh or punitive measures. In fact, it was under diversion policies that some of the more harsh and militaristic boot camps were instituted in the United States.35 The CWLC supports the Quebec model of alternative measures with its high accessibility and emphasis on rehabilitation and parental and community involvement.
Even prior to the amendment regarding presumptive transfers in Bill C-37, we are also disturbed by the increase in transfers of young offenders to adult court, particularly in certain provinces. In those provinces, transfers would be ordered for non-violent crimes, particularly if the youth was a repeat offender. 36 In effect, the province and court in which a young person was processed had more impact on whether he or she would be transferred than the crime committed or the need to protect society from future violence. It is important to recognize that the amendments regarding presumptive transfers will do nothing to address this disparity, as they serve only to facilitate transfer in serious cases. The provision for discretionary transfers available prior to the recent amendments has been maintained.
Another area where a punitive, corrections oriented trend has been noted is in pre-trial detention. Doob et al. report that in the years following the passing of the YOA pre-trial detention has increased dramatically in certain provinces.37 This development is of grave concern given that, as Professor John Gandy, also a consultant on this brief, has observed, denial of bail is "the most intrusive sanction for young offenders".38
Professor Gandy conducted a study in 1992 of Ontario youth who were incarcerated prior to trial. He found that for 79% of detainees, the most serious offence was against property or administration of justice. Although the primary ground on which judges are supposed to base the decision to deny a youth bail is the need to ensure the teen's appearance for trial, this formed the rationale in only 24% of cases studied. Most judges instead based their decision on the secondary- ground, which involves an assessment of other problems the youth may be experiencing, as well as previous contravention of household rules and/or court orders. Breaches of court orders generally involved bail conditions which were extremely difficult for a young person to meet in the absence of additional support. Failing to attend school regularly,, to get a job, or to respect a curfew thus became criminalized under a criminal law sanction which is meant primarily to protect society from violent offenders.39
A final area in which a carceral orientation seems more evident than a rehabilitative one is in the correctional systems which have been instituted for young offenders in many provinces. Jeff Walker of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa describes the two-tiered system in Ontario as such as system. For offenders under years of age, or "Phase One" offenders, the Community Services Ministry provides custodial placements which reflect a rehabilitative orientation. However, for the 16 and 17 year olds in the "Phase Two" system, the Corrections Ministry is responsible. These facilities have much more in common with an adult correctional facility than one aimed at youth care and rehabilitation.40 Other provinces such as Alberta also depend largely on correction-oriented, non-therapeutic detention centers for the serving of custodial dispositions.
More than one consultant on this brief reported treatment in these facilities, both by some staff and some residents, which would be experienced by the young person as degrading and potentially emotionally or even physically abusive. As Jeff Walker of Ottawa Children's Aid cautions, such treatment serves only to "fuel anger, frustration and low self-esteem on the part of the adolescent" making it counterproductive to goals of preventing future offending.41
The above description signals a lack of coherence in the implementation of the YOA and demonstrates a need for the provinces and the federal government to harmonize their application of the law. The administration of parts of the YOA such as alternative measures and judicial interim release vary substantially from province to province and court to court, with inconsistent and inappropriate results. In addition many instances of its administration are more harsh on youth than is warranted in the circumstances. Certainly, federal-provincial co-operation and consultation on this issue would provide one avenue for addressing these concerns. More must be done to remedy the problem of youth crime, however.
These moves to a more corrective than rehabilitative response to youth occurred prior to the most recent amendments. Bill C-37 in turn reflects an even harsher and more corrections focused strategy for dealing with young offenders. We have demonstrated that the roots of these policy and implementation developments can be found in misplaced public alarm and jurisdictional fiscal policy, rather than an appreciation of either the types of crime committed by youth or the nature and needs of the young people and their families. This approach is surely not one which anyone concerned about the well-being of youth would find desirable. Many consultants and writers argue that the YOA was adequate to deal with serious offenders prior to the amendments, an assertion which is supported by the facility with which transfers to adult court have occurred in certain provinces. In fact, as already illustrated, the policy advisors to the Federal government have advocated quite a different approach, and expressed concern about these developments and the government itself has endorsed these findings. We are left wondering what has changed.
The most plausible explanation is that government officials like others in the community have fallen prey to the general mood of alarm on the part of our society, one that some consultants termed "zero tolerance of youth". As we shall see the effects of this attitude in the youth justice system carry serious implications for our young people, their families and communities. As we shall also see zero tolerance of young people, rather than addressing the problem of youth crime, contributes to and maintains it. As Neil Deringer and his colleagues at the City of Calgary state,
Implications of a Corrections Oriented Response
Corrections Oriented Responses Ignore the Root Causes of Youth Crime
| Back to Table of Contents |
Much research has been done in Canada and elsewhere to determine predictors of offending by young people.43 Many factors which correlate strongly with youth offending have been identified. We find it helpful to group these factors into societal, family, and individual markers.
Societal factors are those life conditions over which the young person and his or her family may have little or no control. Their roots are in changes in and persistent features of our social structure and institutions. Those which are prevalent for adolescent offenders include poverty and unemployment, substandard housing and urban decay, high urban mobility, racism. and lack of resources in the community.
Family factors include sexual and or physical abuse of children, witnessing of violence, usually against the young person's mother, lack of or inadequate supervision by parents, excessively harsh discipline, spousal conflict, father's absence, parental alcohol or substance abuse, and parental and sibling psychiatric problems.
Individual factors include poor school performance and learning disabilities, school attendance problems and drop-out, behaviour problems and troublesomeness, low self-esteem, anti-social attitudes, rejection by peers and/or association with a delinquent peer group, alcohol or substance abuse, and psychiatric problems. Dr. Gus Thompson of Alberta Mental Health Services has further found that child welfare status, in itself, constitutes a individual risk factor for later criminality.44 Another key factor, which has not received enough attention in the literature, is gender. The vast majority of young offenders are male, up to 90% in some jurisdictions. Given that most experience neglectful, abusive, or no parenting from a father figure, many researchers have stated the need for more research into the role of gender and, in particular, fathers in the etiology of youth criminality.45 Of import as well is the increase in offending by young women in Canada, another issue yet to be addressed in any depth in the literatures.46
All of these influences work to reinforce one another. It is obvious that the family is key to preventing or encouraging the development of the child's individual anti-social responses especially when these manifest in early childhood. Leading writers in the area of family policy for crime prevention theorize that families who are dealing with excessive stresses of poverty, racism, and poor or disadvantaged communities often experience an impairment in their parenting capacity and/or skills. This will be exacerbated by lack of support from extended family or community and will in more serious cases result, or be correlated with, family violence, alcohol and substance abuse, and psychiatric problems.47
The above cited authors further report that many longitudinal studies in Canada, the USA and England have shown that where parents manage to care adequately for children, even in the face of extreme disadvantage, child delinquency rates do not differ from those of the general population. These studies have also shown that through supporting parents, provided that the support is maintained over the long-term, the effects of poverty, community breakdown and racism on young people are greatly mitigated and delinquency thus largely prevented.
While the CWLC sees families as key to the prevention of youth criminality, and also thus to its prevention, we do not in any way advocate the imposition of legal liability for a child's crimes on parents. In fact, as many consultants stated, such a move would work counter to any rehabilitative efforts as it places expectations on families that they are unable to meet without support. Such measures would also exacerbate many of the problems in such families, by leading to further abuse of children, for example.48 As Judge Allard states, "Family responsibility means blaming parents, -and for what? In 37 years as a Provincial Court Judge I have never seen a parent who was intentionally or maliciously neglecting his or her children."49
To illustrate how particular risk factors in the literature impact on Canadian families, Dr. Geoff Pawson, Executive Director of the Ranch Ehrlo Society in Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan, a CWLC member and contributor to this brief, highlighted and explained five etiological aspects of youth crime which he sees as key to understanding to the problem for youth crime in Canada. They include: poverty, family violence, addictions, and neglect and community apathy.50
"The step between poverty and a life of crime is a small one for many youth, as alternatives are minimal, pressures are intense, and coping skills are often inadequate. Poverty carries with it the stigma of failure, with a depressive lifestyle of futility, and a sense that nothing matters. Youth who aspire to rise above these feelings of worthlessness can easily find means for quick compensation through prostitution, sale of illegal drugs, breaking and entering, and other activities.... Further, at least fifty per cent of people charged under the Young Offenders Act have been involved with protective services of child welfare and approximately 20% to 40% have been involved with mental health services. (Sandra Scarth, CWLA, Symposium, October, 1994) Experience indicates that child welfare services usually involve people living in poverty, and this relationship helps define more completely the interconnection between poverty and crime."
Dr. Pawson also describes the effects of family violence on young people. As he states, "Physical abuse, sexual abuse, violent quarrels between parents, and severe or inconsistent corporal discipline create an unsafe and unpredictable environment for youth." Such an environment holds the "building blocks" for conduct and personality disorders. As the NCPC reports in their draft publication, Offender Profiles, one half of all federally incarcerated adult offenders had either been the victims of child abuse or witnessed family violence.51 Addressing family violence at its earliest stages must be a priority in any crime prevention strategy, as the impact of abuse and violence lasts a life-time.
Addictions is the third determinant that Dr. Pawson identified as important for Canadian youth. As he elaborates,
Dr. Pawson goes on to explain that the young person's parents are also often struggling with drug or alcohol abuse, which in turn contributes to neglectful and abusive parenting. Young people will turn to drugs and alcohol to escape the reality of their lives. The "drugs of choice" for poor youth are often solvents due to their accessibility and cheap cost. This addiction is extremely serious as it often leads to other types of substance abuse and can quickly damage the young person's central nervous system, heart, and liver. As Dr. Pawson describes, "major attention at this time is being provided this addiction by Aboriginal people across Canada, but like all addictions the roots are bedded in abuse, poverty, and family problems."
The fourth determinant of youth crime which is clearly relevant in the Canadian context is racism. Pawson echoes many other writers who have observed the high correlation between youth crime and membership in ethnic minority and aboriginal communities. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Secretary of State for Training and Youth recently commented at a conference that aboriginal youth are more likely to graduate from youth court than high school. She also notes that the NWT has the second highest recidivism rate in the country.52 At the same conference, Ken Jeffers, Founder of the Harriet Tubman Community Organization, reports that Black offenders are severely over- represented in incarceration facilities, with incarceration rates as high as 34.6% of the prison populations when the Black community represents only three to four per cent of the general population.53 Racism affects families and youth in many obvious ways. Due to the forces of oppression and/or community strain or even breakdown many of these young people and their families are living with most or all of the other risk factors which we describe above. Certainly a greatly disproportionate number of them live in impoverished conditions. This is coupled with a community attitude which blames these communities for their problems, ignoring the greater social and political forces at work.54
The final root of youth crime which Dr. Pawson identifies is what he terms "neglect and community apathy". This factor serves to reinforce and exacerbate the other roots of youth crime which are experienced by youth and their families. He describes society's 'hands off' attitude to families, particularly those in difficulty. As he explains, "thousands of children are suffering from various forms of neglect and go unaided ... Their business becomes our business if the child offends against us. For the safety of the child and ourselves, neglect cannot be condoned as it may lead to criminal behaviour that holds a cost for all of us." Dr. Pawson's description of the key determinants of youth crime in the Canadian context helps us to understand the operation and implications of these factors in the lives of young people and their families.
Dr. David Day, Research Director for Earlscourt Child and Family Centre, an Ontario CWLC member involved in providing mental health services to children and families, adds to our understanding of the impact of these risk factors. He states that such factors, which he terms criminogenic or crime-related needs, are present in greater number and complexity for those children who manifest anti-social behaviour prior to age 12. These "early starters" are more likely to persist into adulthood, and to commit serious offences. Late starters are much more likely to commit only a few offences and to stop once they reach adulthood. However, the more serious the offences, even for late starters, the longer the behaviour will persist into the late teens.55 Doob et al. also remind us that according to self reports, 80% of young people commit crimes. The vast majority are never caught and will cease offending behaviour on their own with no intervention from the youth justice system.56
Our knowledge of the risk factors present in the lives of most young offenders, the relationship between the complexity and number of these and the age of onset, persistence, and severity of offending, and the reminder that mild incidents of youthful crime are normal, leave us with an understanding which would help greatly in developing policy and programming for these youth and their families. Such policy should reflect the needs of the typical young offender and his or her family as opposed to only the most serious ones. The following description of a typical probation client in Calgary would apply to cities across the country.
Deringer and his colleagues go on to describe the "common thread" among young offenders as a feeling of betrayal "by significant adults, usually one or both parents or surrogate parents provided by the State."57
One can quickly see how the traditional zero tolerance and punitive approaches, rather than providing the much needed support for this young man, his family and his school, serve only to exacerbate the family problem, fuel his feelings of worthlessness and anger, and further encourage community apathy. Such a response certainly fails to address the root causes of most youth crime. As we shall see in the next section, these measures also result in future offending for many youth.
Harsh, Correctional Measures Do Not Deter Crime
| Back to Table of Contents |
As Doob et al. explain, the main argument given for implementing harsh measures is their deterrent value.58 However, the Honourable Herb Grey, Solicitor General for Canada stated in March of this year that, "if the answer [to the problem of youth crime] was longer sentences then the United States would be the safest place in the world."59 Patricia Begin and Nicholas Bala have similarly remarked that the increase over the past thirty years of numbers employed in correctional system and the number of facilities has not created safer communities.60 In this view they are joined by government researchers in France., England, and the Netherlands, who have all concluded that more police, courts and prisons will fall to combat the crime problem as the roots of crime lie outside of reach of these institutions.61 In this section we will canvass many reasons why increased incarceration and tougher legislative measures are simply not the answer to youth crime.
One of the main arguments against the deterrent effect of harsh measures raised by all of the consultants to this brief is that young people simply do not believe that they will get caught. Research shows us that this is quite a rational, well-founded belief. Doob et al. review the literature on whether the risk of getting caught deters youthful offending. They demonstrate that it is the perceived risk by the adolescent that influences their behaviour. Most youth feel they are infallible and will not be apprehended. Also, getting caught the first time leads them to perceive a lower probability of future apprehension, thus leading to increased future offending!62 Given that young people perceive their chances of being arrested as slim, harsher measures have no merit as a deterrent.
Related to this phenomenon is the type of reasoning which accompanies a young person's offending behaviour. Doob and his colleagues further report that most young people do not plan offences but rather are seeking a short-term reward, either in terms of the thrill, exemplified by the "bravado" element which Judge Allard has witnessed in most auto thefts, or quick monetary gain. Young people simply do not consider the long-term consequences of their actions.63 This does not surprise those among us who are parents or work with young people as it is a mode of thinking which contributes to school nonattendance and drop- out, smoking, and drug and alcohol abuse by teens. Thus even for those young people who perceive themselves likely to be apprehended the long-term results are of little import in any cost-benefit analysis they undertake for crime.
A further factor which leads us to believe that harsh measures fail to have a deterrent effect is the state of youth knowledge about the YOA and its consequences. Though many contributors describe what Judge Allard terms the informal "message system" among young people, one that relays certain information, such as the sentences one is likely to get for certain crimes or the advantages of one facility over another, most would also agree with Judge Allard's corollary that "most kids still know more about how to break into a car with a pair of barber scissors than they do about the Young Offenders Act." 64
In fact many research studies have examined the state of young people's knowledge of the YOA and related services. These found that youth tend to have very limited knowledge of the act or its consequences. Dr. David Day reports the finding that younger children in fact overestimate the harshness of the sanctions to be imposed for offending behaviour.65 A perception of much harsher sanctions did little to deter crime in the past, and the likelihood that young people will become aware of the new harsher sanctions is quite low. Changes to the legislation and consequent harsher, more punitive measures are not likely to have a deterrent effect given this experience.
A final factor identified by many contributors as interfering with the potential for deterrence in the imposition of tough measures under the YOA relates to the administration of an adversarial system of justice. The delays inherent in such a system mean that corrective measures will come too long after the offence to have an effective corrective impact.66 As Jeff Walker states, "when there is such a gap between the time an offence is committed and sentencing, young people frequently see the sanctions as overly punitive. This is especially concerning when, during this period, a youth has improved his or her behaviour dramatically. Such experiences are what create antisocial adults."67
The above knowledge about adolescent psychology and behaviour and its interaction with the imposition of harsh sanctions for child and adolescent criminality explain and reinforce above cited observations that such measures will not deter youth crime. In the following section we will demonstrate that not only are such measures ineffective, they entail serious social and financial costs which we as a society can ill afford.
Correctional Measures May Create Criminals (The Social Costs)
| Back to Table of Contents |
Many researchers have found that correctional responses to young offenders are correlated with increased recidivism after release, an effect that is most significant when incarceration takes place in the absence of strong rehabilitation services. 68 Doob et al. and Andrews, Leshied and Hoge additionally report findings that Boot Camps with a harsh militaristic focus combined with limited or no rehabilitative services lead to increased rates of offending upon releases.69 Clark and O'Reilly-Fleming describe similar results for under 12 offenders. Reactive and deterrence oriented or denunciatory responses were found not only to be ineffective for young children but also to lead to increased offending in this age group.70
Leshied and Gendreau explain this phenomenon in terms of a social learning model. They hold that while high risk, serious offenders would be incarcerated in any system, low risk, non-violent youth will be negatively influenced by the strong anti-social values and beliefs of their higher risk peers. The data they cite support a finding that net-widening will increase recidivism for low risk teens. 71
Jeff Walker of the Ottawa CAS has further concerns regarding the social costs of moving child welfare clients into the Young Offenders system in Ontario. As such a client, upon receiving even an open custody order, must be moved from his or her current placement to serve the disposition, the continuity of relationships in the young person's life, which is already tenuous for many child welfare clients, is destroyed. Walker proposes that the principle of continuity in sentences be included in the YOA. As he states, "The benefits of continuity in relationships for the youth far outweigh any impact moving them will have." His concern has serious implications given the high overlap between child welfare and young offender populations. This situation does not occur in Quebec where a young person would likely stay in the same facility with simply more strict conditions set on his or her behaviour. Young women in Ontario face the additional problem of being incarcerated in what are described as wholly inappropriate, and potentially cruel and inhumane conditions given the lack of appropriate secure custody facilities for young women. It is not uncommon for one young woman to be housed with 20 males who continually subject her to demeaning sexual comments.72
The Financial Costs of Correctional Measures
| Back to Table of Contents |
In 1992-93, youth corrections accounted for one fifth of all corrections costs, or approximately $480 million. This percentage corresponds to the amount of overall crime for which youth are responsible. If the same proportion is applied to the total funds assigned to the justice system, which pay for policing, the court systems and legal aid, youth criminal justice responses cost Canadian tax payers approximately $1.9 billion each year. The price tag for the entire justice system mounted to $9.6 billion for that year.73 Given that 75-80% of adult offenders in the Federal Penitentiaries of this country were persistent offenders as adolescents74 , a large portion of the adult system's total expenditures represent long-term costs related to youth criminality.
As reported by Welsh and Waller, in a soon to be released publication of the Department Of Justice, justice system spending only represents part of the costs related to crime. Their report assesses the other costs, such as property loss, private security measures, and the treatment of victims, at $6 billion for the year. Welsh and Waller comment that the main reason for such persistently high costs is our reliance on the criminal justice system which has on its own not managed to have a sufficient impact on crime rates. Lacking in the criminal justice response have been any attempts to address the root causes of crime or to decrease opportunities to offend. 75
Unfortunately, with the new amendments, certain youth justice system costs are sure to increase. Presumptive transfers will double the court appearances that will take place for these offenders. Also, although one of the amended provisions has the purpose of discouraging unnecessary custodial dispositions, in the absence of a commitment to fund community-based alternatives, no such reduction will be possible.
In fact as social services to families and children in difficulty are whittled away, we will likely see a greater call on the justice system to respond to young offenders. In an Ontario newspaper, a Provincial Court judge was quoted describing young offenders who have been living on welfare in poorly supervised living situations and have committed serious criminal acts. Our Ottawa member and consultant predicts that cuts to child welfare services in Ontario will force more children out of group homes before they are ready to live independently, children who will end up in poorly supervised apartments and eventually on the streets.76 Such responses bear serious social and financial costs. Are we ready and willing to pay this price? Do we have to pay it? Is this a wise choice given what we know about youth crime and its determinants?
The CWLC Advocates a More Effective Approach to Preventing Youth Crime
| Back to Table of Contents |
The Child Welfare League of Canada believes that we do have a choice. We advocate an approach to youth criminality which seeks to address its root causes and to involve families and communities. By so doing, we can prevent what starts out as an individual's response to family-based problems and socioeconomic difficulties from becoming serious intrusions on other people's property and persons. Such an approach would involve a range of responses so that the best, most appropriate strategy could be undertaken in each case. Individuals, their families, their schools and their communities need support in addressing the problem of anti-social behaviour on the part of young people. As we have shown, the criminal justice system is severely limited in its capacity to respond to all of these needs.
Our commitment to the well-being of children and families does not stop there, however. We wish also to acknowledge and address difficulties in the implementation of the YOA at the provincial level, identify an urgent need for resources, and advocate measures which are not only effective in preventing youth crime, thereby addressing its social costs, but also cost-effective when compared to the present system.
 |  |  |