![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Executive Summary Review of the Nunavut Community Justice ProgramEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Community Justice Program began in 1993 under the Government of the Northwest Territories and continued under the Government of Nunavut from April 1, 1999. The aim of the Nunavut Department of Justice is to support communities in taking greater responsibility for offenders and victims. The Department has also emphasized prevention and healing at the community level in an attempt to shift complete reliance away from the mainstream approaches involving formal charges, court appearances and incarceration. A significant aspect of this approach is the importance of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit traditional knowledge - referred to as IQ) as a basic premise underlying the Program. The review of the Nunavut Community Justice Program is based first on consultations with Community Justice Committees and other community programs[1] in four communities: Pangnirtung, Rankin Inlet, Arviat and Iqaluit. Second, the review involved interviews with key community members working directly or indirectly with the justice system in Nunavut. Third, available documents and statistics were reviewed as part of the process. The Community Justice Program consists of a Director of Corrections and Community Justice, an Assistant Director of Community Justice; five Regional Community Justice Specialists, as well as a Community Justice Committee Coordinator for each community. The mandate, goals and objectives of the Community Justice Program address the need to strengthen community-based justice processes and outcomes, but also the need to increase community responsibility for and involvement in the handling of crime. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is seen as part of the process. Pangnirtung, Rankin Inlet and Arviat have relatively stable and effective Community Justice Committees. Although the Iqaluit Restorative Justice Society began operations in November 2003 and is still establishing itself, the Society is taking diversions from police and the Court. In all four cases, regardless of the strength of the committee, there are challenges that require remedial action. These problems are equally or more serious in other communities with less stable Community Justice Committees. The report arrives at several conclusions based on the research findings. They are organized according to the three major questions that formed the basis for the terms of the project. Is the Community Justice Program meeting its mandate and objectives as currently established?Generally, it appears that the Community Justice Program is meeting its current mandate and objectives. Significant progress has been made by many Community Justice Committees in terms of handling referrals of youth and adult cases from the RCMP and the court. It also appears that many of the committees have the respect of their communities, Hamlet Councils, and other professionals in the community. Further, it appears that the most effective of the Community Justice Committees may be having an impact on re-offending in their communities. It is also possible that the work of some committees may even be reducing first offences, although this would be difficult to confirm in the scope of this review. There are some concerns, however.Community Justice CoordinatorsIn some cases, the Coordinator position appears to be a weak link in the process. This is a problem, in part, because it is difficult to attract qualified individuals to the job. There is general agreement that this is primarily due to the fact that the Coordinators are underpaid and that the jobs are only part-time. There is also inadequate funding to train the Coordinators properly. Until these problems are addressed and all Coordinators are able to perform their tasks effectively, the Regional Community Justice Specialists will continue to carry much of the burden of running the administrative aspects of the program.Justice Committee MembershipThe process for selecting and appointing members of the Community Justice Committees requires refinement and standardization to ensure that the most appropriate community members are on the committees. This matter is currently being addressed by the development of committee membership criteria. The Role of HamletsWhile many of the Hamlets cooperate efficiently with the program, in some cases there may be a problem with the allocation of program funds. As well, some Hamlets are slow to provide the required financial statements regarding the program budget for the community. InfrastructureIn many cases Community Justice Committees still do not have adequate, dedicated space where the committee can hold meetings, engage in counseling or mediation, or where the Coordinator can work. This is a serious issue, especially in view of the sensitive nature of the committees' work and the need for confidentiality. Victim InvolvementThere are concerns about the relationship between the community justice program and the policy directives of the RCMP. At the national and divisional RCMP Headquarters, restorative justice is defined as involving the victim in every case. Community Justice Committees, on the other hand, involve the victim when the victim agrees to participate and may otherwise counsel only the offender as long as the victim agrees. The committees, which often comprise mostly Elders, have been given the mandate to engage in community based justice according to Inuit ways. Traditionally, the victim was not involved in the process in many instances. This is a complex question and the explanation would require focused research beyond the scope of this review. However, examples are in evidence throughout this report. The difference between the emerging official RCMP view and the approach of the Community Justice Committees is a potentially serious issue. To date, it appears that detachment commanders are setting the pre-charge referral policy in their communities. In many cases, this means that the police are diverting cases even though they know the victim may not be directly involved. In other communities, the RCMP may not be referring cases for this reason. It has been and may still be an issue in Iqaluit, for example. If Divisional Headquarters decides to force the issue, it may mean that detachment commanders will be required to stop pre-charge diversions. ReportingIn some communities the reporting relationship between the committee, on one hand, and the RCMP and Crown Prosecutor, on the other hand, is not as effective as it should be. The police and the Crown Prosecutor always need to be apprised of the status of referrals as they are dealt with by the committees. This is not a serious problem as the reporting relationship works well in many communities and could easily be improved in the others. PlanningThe Specialists recently engaged in a five-year planning exercise. However, committees and Coordinators have not been involved in planning exercises with respect to their own communities. It is the belief of committees and community consultees that yearly planning by the committees would assist the program. Outcome Measures and MonitoringOutcome measures and effective monitoring procedures have not been put in place for the program. The implementation of the Nunavut Community Justice Agreement Form should help in terms of providing timely data on each case as it proceeds, as long as the Coordinators provide the information needed to monitor individual cases and, by extension, the program as a whole. Do the mandate and structure of the Community Justice Program reflect the Program's current and future needs?Generally the mandate and structure of the program are adequate to meet Nunavut's community justice needs. While there are some concerns regarding program operations and funding, the major concern may be the one about the differences between the RCMP and the Community Justice Committees in terms of their definitions of restorative justice or community justice. The question becomes one of whether the committees are authorized to proceed in ways that they define according to Inuit traditions. Specifically, the issue is whether victims must always be actively involved in the process. Does the Community Justice Program provide effective alternatives to the formal justice system?The consensus view is that the Community Justice Program is providing an effective alternative to the formal justice system. Further, community consultees in all categories agree that the program is improving as time passes. It should be said that, while some specific concerns were raised in both the consultations and in the interviews with key community members, there is general agreement that the program is performing a valuable function and that it holds potential for even greater positive impacts in the communities. Summary of Recommendations
[1] Consultations were held with the Rankin Inlet Spousal Abuse Program, and the Rankin Inlet Victim Support Program. [2] At this time, all six Community Justice Specialists are women. |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
Last Updated: 2005-11-21 | ![]() |
Important Notices |